ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Secondary Ticketing

Sharon Hodgson: What representations he has received from secondary ticketing platforms and those working on their behalf on amendments on secondary ticketing made to the Consumer Rights Bill in the House of Lords.

Sajid Javid: I have not had any specific discussions with secondary ticketing platforms on the amendments made to the Consumer Rights Bill in the other place.

Sharon Hodgson: May I offer my condolences on the very sad loss this morning of the cricketer Phil Hughes? The thoughts of the whole House will be with him and his family this morning.
	The Secretary of State was very keen on our ideas to improve transparency in the secondary ticketing market when I and colleagues met him in July to discuss the report of the all-party group on ticket abuse. He must therefore be delighted, as I am, that their lordships have added a new clause to the Consumer Rights Bill to deliver exactly that, although, sadly, against the Government Whip. Will he lobby his counterpart at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to leave that new clause in the Bill, so that we can finally put fans first?

Sajid Javid: I was pleased to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the issue, but she knows, because we discussed it then, that the previous Labour Government, this Government and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport have looked at the issue and all have concluded that new legislation is not necessary. Event organisers can seek their own solutions. However, I am of course looking carefully at the new clause that was accepted in the other place and will respond to it fully in due course.

Philip Davies: The new clause is similar to a new clause that was defeated in this House when the Bill was going through the Commons. Should not the elected Chamber get its way, rather than the
	unelected Chamber? Is not this all about allowing event organisers to void or cancel tickets and place people on blacklists, denying them any guaranteed refund, which has nothing to do with transparency or protecting the interests of consumers?

Sajid Javid: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He and others will know that I have said that I believe that the calls for legislation have been misguided. Criminalising people and preventing them from selling tickets that they have purchased is a heavy-handed approach and is inconsistent with wider consumer rights to buy and sell items that they freely own.

Clive Efford: May I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) regarding Phil Hughes and also mention Sean Abbott, the bowler involved in that tragic accident, who must be feeling terrible?
	The Secretary of State’s response is just not good enough. The Government have failed to act to protect rugby world cup fans and now the same is happening to cricket fans. Ashes tickets for the Lord’s test are on sale on the secondary ticketing market for £1,500, yet the ballot and the prices will not be available until next month. What is more worrying is that the Football Association, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Rugby Football Union and the Lawn Tennis Association all wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to warn him that unless the Government act they will be forced to put their prices up to secondary ticketing levels, so at least the money that is being made can be invested back into sport. That may be music to the Government’s free market ears but it is a disaster for sports fans on moderate and low incomes. When will the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport get a grip and act? He must do it quickly.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman knows all too well that when his party was in office it failed to act on the issue. He will also know that the previous Government looked at the issue in detail, as did the Select Committee at that time, and all concluded that it is for event organisers to take action. With newer technology, and technology improving all the time, there are probably more ways to do so.

David Nuttall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that existing secondary market companies already provide safe and secure means for ticket holders to resell unwanted tickets and that they provide a level of consumer protection that will not be available if people are forced to go on to the black market on the streets?

Sajid Javid: I agree. People have rightly raised concerns about the sale of fraudulent or non-existent tickets and about people who provide misleading information. That is already a criminal act.

First World War Commemoration

Andrew Rosindell: What progress he has made on ensuring that the first world war is appropriately commemorated.

Sajid Javid: The events my Department hosted on 4 August set a fitting tone and this month my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a memorable and dignified programme of events to commemorate the Gallipoli campaign. We are also offering further programmes that allow local communities to mark the centenary in their own way.

Andrew Rosindell: In this year of the 100th anniversary of the first world war, it is of course right that the ambassador of Ireland was asked to lay a wreath for the first time ever at the cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday. As the Secretary of State is responsible for the arrangements for the national service in Whitehall on Remembrance Sunday, will he please explain why it is still not possible for representatives of Her Majesty’s territories and dependencies to lay their own wreaths in their own right, and will he undertake to put this right for next year?

Sajid Javid: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that it was absolutely right to invite the Government of Ireland to lay a wreath at the national remembrance day service. It was an opportunity to mark our nations’ shared sacrifice. My hon. Friend will also be aware that Her Majesty the Queen lays a wreath on behalf of our country and the Crown dependencies and the Foreign Secretary does so on behalf of British overseas territories. I have to tell my hon. Friend that at this point we have no plans to change these arrangements.

Bob Russell: Christmas eve is the 200th anniversary of the ending of the North American war between the United States and the United Kingdom. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is also worthy of a fitting tribute, perhaps of celebration and not just commemoration?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is not something I have looked at carefully, but now he has mentioned it, I will take a look.

Maria Miller: Our perceptions of the first world war have been shaped by historians but also by the artists of the time. The team at 14-18 NOW, in particular Jenny Waldman and Vikki Heywood, have helped artists today shape our commemorations of this important event. Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red at the Tower of London is part of the 14-18 NOW work and I am sure the Secretary of State will want to join me in putting on record the thanks of the entire House to the incredible team of volunteers who have made this happen.

Sajid Javid: I wholeheartedly join my right hon. Friend in commending them for the work they have done. The poppies at the Tower captured the imagination of the whole nation. I had the privilege of planting a poppy myself, and I was pleased that the Government could act with 14-18 NOW to make sure part of that poppy display will now tour the country over the next four years.

Jake Berry: A lot of the questions today have been about national acts of remembrance, but I hope Members will take the opportunity to remember the 100th anniversary in their own constituencies. Will the Secretary of State join me
	in congratulating Brent Stevenson, a monumental mason from Darwen, who, free of charge, is providing a new world war one memorial in the centre of Darwen?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I will. I have heard of the work Brent Stevenson is doing and I wholeheartedly commend that. My Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government are helping to provide funding and other ways of support to local communities to commemorate the war in their own way.

Mr Speaker: Michael Connarty. Not here.

Tourism

Andrew Bingham: What recent estimate he has made of the contribution of tourism to the economy.

Mark Menzies: What recent estimate he has made of the contribution of tourism to the economy.

Helen Grant: The tourism industry was worth an estimated £127 billion gross value added to the UK economy in 2013. Some £58 billion of this is direct contribution. Tourism supports 3.1 million jobs in the UK.

Andrew Bingham: Christmas lights are being turned on across the whole of my High Peak constituency at the moment, with the village of Castleton proving a particular draw to tourists from all around. Does my hon. Friend agree that tourism in this country is a year-round phenomenon, not just for the summer, and consequently provides a huge boost to my constituency and the whole country? Furthermore, will she join me in paying tribute to all the volunteers across High Peak and the country who spend this time of year putting up Christmas trees to create the festive atmosphere that so many people enjoy?

Helen Grant: I agree with my hon. Friend: tourism is certainly a year-round industry across the UK. I am also absolutely delighted to pay tribute to all the volunteers and helpers across his beautiful constituency who work so hard to ensure everybody enjoys the festive season.

Mark Menzies: Hoteliers on the Fylde coast have told me they have had one of the best tourist seasons in well over a decade. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure the great British coastal resorts such as those in Fylde have a bumper 2015?

Helen Grant: Coastal towns are an important part of our tourism economy, and I am pleased to say that the Government have recently announced £10 million of funding for tourism in the north of England. I hope that the resort of Fylde will get involved with the fund, which will bring even more tourists to our fantastic northern coastal towns.

Barry Sheerman: We do not have any coastline in Huddersfield, but we do have more—[Interruption.] Hang on, guys! We have more listed buildings than most towns, including York
	and Cambridge. There are 1,500 in the centre of Huddersfield and another 1,500 in greater Huddersfield. We know the value of tourism, and we know that it depends on the cultural life of our communities. However, that cultural life is being swept away by Government cuts, with a cruel Treasury cutting, cutting, cutting. Many of our great exhibitions and festivals are being cut to the bone. What is the Minister going to do about that?

Helen Grant: Our tourism strategy has led to record visitor numbers and record spends and brought £127 billion to the UK economy, so I am not going to take any finger wagging from the hon. Gentleman.

Robert Jenrick: The great opportunity in the tourism market in the years ahead will be in attracting Chinese tourists. Britain has been improving in its ability to do that, and I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State have taken a personal interest in that area, particularly in relation to visas. We know that Chinese tourists are surprisingly adventurous and want to get out of London and into the regions, and we are seeing more of that in the midlands and Scotland. What more can the Government do to market the regions—particularly the east midlands—to get those wealthy Chinese tourists out of London and the south-east?

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. VisitEngland and VisitBritain promote the nations and the regions, and they do a very good job. VB does it through its GREAT and tactical campaigns, and VE does it through its very successful holidays at home campaigns. The local growth fund, the regional growth fund, the coastal community fund and the recently established £10 million fund for the north are all helpful in growing local tourism outside London.

Broadband

Michael Fabricant: What steps he is taking to provide broadband of up to 2 megabits in areas currently not served. [R]

Edward Vaizey: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that Ofcom reports that 97% of premises in the UK already have access to broadband speeds of at least 2 megabits. The Government are committed to ensuring that the whole country will be able to receive 2 megabits as soon as possible.

Michael Fabricant: Well, I would not want to accuse my hon. Friend—and he is a friend—of being smug, but what about the other 3%? May I just say how utterly frustrating it is to hear about superfast broadband when parts of my constituency such as Tatenhill, and other parts of the United Kingdom, have no broadband at all?

Edward Vaizey: I am very far from being smug. Having read my hon. Friend’s interview in which he waxed lyrical about his “bromance” with the Chief Whip, imagine how I felt after our years of friendship. Nevertheless, I remain resolute in supporting him, and I am pleased to be able to tell him that Staffordshire as a whole has received £9 million to connect to superfast broadband
	and that his own constituency will see 8,000 homes committed under our programme. That is real “bromance”, Mr Speaker.

Meg Hillier: Even in the tech hub at the heart of my constituency we have huge challenges with broadband, as the Minister knows. One of the main barriers to having high speeds everywhere is the fact that competitors are unable to put their equipment on buildings without the permission of the landowner. Is it not time for a change in the planning laws? What conversations is he having with his counterparts in the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that that is delivered?

Edward Vaizey: I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that I have sat down with representatives of the City of London to talk about broadband in central London. I was also pleased to hear the City of London’s plans to roll out its own broadband network, because competition is very important. She raises an important point, and we will continue to keep that matter under review.

Caroline Nokes: The Abbotsford estate on the edge of Romsey is a brand-new, 800-home development that still suffers from broadband speeds of less than 2 megabits. Does the Minister agree that it will be an enormously long wait until 2017 for those residents to get decent speeds?

Edward Vaizey: There are two answers to that question. The first is that we have sat down with developers and network providers to work on a code of conduct to ensure that new developments get broadband. Secondly, it is worth reminding hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, that this is a difficult engineering project. We cannot deliver broadband with the wave of a wand, but we are ahead of schedule in almost all areas.

William Bain: At a time when the Government are making more and more services digital by default, does the Minister believe it is acceptable for 1.2 million homes across the UK, including 113,000 in Scotland, still to have no access to broadband whatsoever? What are the Government doing putting back their timetable for superfast broadband? Should we not have universal coverage now?

Edward Vaizey: All homes do have access to broadband; 97% have access to broadband at speeds of 2 megabits; superfast broadband availability has doubled; the average speed of broadband has trebled; one in four people in this country have superfast broadband; and we have the lowest prices of the European Union big five and the United States.

Anne McIntosh: I hate to break up the “bromance” but 28% of farms and rural businesses across Thirsk, Malton and Filey will not have any fast-speed broadband, not even 2 megabits, by 2016, yet the Government are making us all go digital by default. What measures will the Minister take to allow farms and rural businesses to access rural broadband before digital by default goes live?

Edward Vaizey: As I said, we are well ahead of schedule with our roll-out of superfast broadband. On Yorkshire, North Yorkshire was one of the first out of the traps, and more than 60,000 homes have been connected through that programme. We also have a £10 million pilot scheme to connect the most remote parts of the country, and that is going very well.

Helen Goodman: Many people were pleased to see the Government’s announcement of 1,000 free wi-fi hot spots across the country, but the map on the Department’s website shows that Glasgow, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield and Bristol, with a combined population of 4 million, have no provision at all. What criteria did the Minister use when choosing locations? How could he possibly miss those great cities?

Edward Vaizey: Well, we worked with the cities, so they came up with up their own proposals. I believe that Newcastle has a cloud computing centre, using its super-connected cities programme, and Bristol, too, has a fast-speed internet hub. So it is up to the cities how they choose to use the money. The criteria have come from the cities and they are the ones that have chosen which public buildings they want to put wi-fi in.

Mobile Networks and Broadband (Northumberland)

Guy Opperman: What progress he has made on ensuring that mobile network operators and broadband providers provide adequate coverage in rural areas of Northumberland.

Sajid Javid: As we have heard, mobile communication is critical to the rural economy. We are therefore working with Ofcom to identify gaps in mobile coverage, and I have consulted on potential measures to tackle patchy coverage. In addition, the Government have allocated £9.5 million to increase superfast broadband coverage in Northumberland to almost 90% by 2016.

Guy Opperman: I accept that we are making progress in Northumberland, but my constituents in many parts, such as Kielder, Dalton, Stamfordham, Stocksfield and Byrness, suffer from very poor mobile and broadband reception, or zero coverage. May I ask the Minister to visit soon, to push BT and the other providers and, frankly, kick ‘em up the arse, and generally to push ahead so that we have a campaign whereby there are no no-go areas and no go-slow areas?

Mr Speaker: I think “posterior” would be a more parliamentary word.

Sajid Javid: I share my hon. Friend’s frustration, but perhaps not in the same way! My Bromsgrove constituency has areas with similar coverage problems, so I can absolutely see the importance of the issue he is raising and how big the problem is for towns such as Kielder. I look forward to visiting Northumberland soon and I will apply whatever pressure I can to BT and others to end this scourge of not spots and poor, slow broadband speeds.

Alan Beith: Innovative small business in my constituency, such as Shepherds Walks in Rothbury, have doubled their business as a
	result of the availability of superfast broadband under this valuable scheme. The remaining areas have businesses that could do the same if they were given a chance, so can he report any progress on alternative technical solutions for the most difficult-to-reach areas?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the impact that superfast broadband can have on businesses, helping them to grow. As he will know, there is a phase 3 to our broadband plan, which is the so-called “last 5%”, and we are working on that simultaneously—we are not waiting for phases 1 and 2. We are working on that right now, and we recently had a £10 million programme to test the feasibility of various projects. We are looking into the results and seeing what can be done.

Music Videos

Diana Johnson: What plans he has to bring forward legislative proposals to bring ratings for music videos online into line with British Board of Film Classification standards.

Edward Vaizey: I welcome the commitment that music labels and digital service providers have made to pilot the British Board of Film Classification age ratings for online music videos where they are unsuitable for younger children. Since it was launched on 1 October, 49 music videos have been classified by the BBFC under the pilot, and the rating symbols should start appearing on YouTube and Vevo towards the end of the year.

Diana Johnson: Why does the voluntary pilot scheme apply only to UK musicians?

Edward Vaizey: We are able to work with UK record labels on this, but it is a voluntary scheme and we are engaging with music labels and video platforms. We can always look to extend it when appropriate.

Mobile Phone Coverage (Rural Areas)

John Glen: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of mobile phone coverage in rural areas.

Edward Vaizey: Mobile coverage at 2G reaches 99% of premises, but my hon. Friend is well aware of the issues that we have with not spots and partial not spots, which is why we have in place the mobile infrastructure programme and why we are currently consulting on roaming.

John Glen: I thank the Minister for that answer. Although I welcome the recent consultation on partial not spots, many areas in rural Wiltshire, such as Bishopstone, remain without any coverage at all. Vodafone’s decision to introduce open sure signal technology in Broad Chalke, as it has recently done in Winterslow, will be revolutionary. What more can be done to incentivise companies such as Vodafone to roll out systematically those solutions before the outcome of the consultation?

Edward Vaizey: When Vodafone announced that scheme, I ensured that all the villages in my constituency were aware of it and encouraged them to apply for it. Bishopstone will be covered under our mobile infrastructure programme. I certainly encourage mobile operators to roll out such solutions. I do not understand why they do not offer villages an off-the-shelf service, as many parish councils would look seriously at funding such a scheme.

John Whittingdale: I commend my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for their efforts to address this problem of partial not spots and not spots. But does my hon. Friend agree that the best solution would be to obtain an agreement with the industry on how to move forward and that it may also require the Government to make some changes to the electronic communications code and possibly the planning rules?

Edward Vaizey: When I said that we are consulting on national roaming, I should have made it clear that we are consulting on a range of options, and a voluntary agreement with the operator remains our preferred solution. Looking at the electronic communications code and the planning laws is also part of the options that we are considering.

Alan Reid: It is good that the Government are giving Arqiva £150 million to put up mobile phone masts in not spots, but they are moving extremely slowly, and they cannot tell anybody what their plans are for Argyll and Bute. Will the Minister urge them to get a move on and to be more transparent with their plans?

Edward Vaizey: We are trying to be as transparent as possible. If my hon. Friend wishes to give me his specific concerns, I will ensure that he gets a full response. This is a technically challenging programme, precisely because these masts are going up in areas that are difficult to reach and where there has previously been no coverage.

Cathedrals

Robin Walker: What recent funding his Department has provided for the fabric of cathedrals in England.

Sajid Javid: In this year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced a £20 million fund to allow cathedrals to undertake urgent repair work. As my hon. Friend knows, that included £330,000 for the beautiful Worcester cathedral. In addition, cathedrals have access to the listed places of worship grant scheme, which has a budget of up to £42 million per annum.

Robin Walker: I am grateful for that answer. May I add my condolences on the tragic death of Phil Hughes, who is fondly remembered in Worcestershire, where he used to play? I was pleased recently to welcome the Secretary of State to Worcester cathedral for a magnificent performance of Shakespeare. Will he join me in celebrating the fact that, in the year that Bishop John of Worcester has taken the lead for the Church of England on
	cathedrals and church buildings, the east window at Worcester cathedral will be being restored with that grant of £330,000?

Sajid Javid: May I first say to my hon. Friend that I thoroughly enjoyed visiting the cathedral with him and seeing “Julius Caesar”. It is an excellent demonstration of how our cathedrals can be open to so many activities in our local communities. In fact, I have seen similar events recently at Rochester and Portsmouth cathedrals. With regard to Bishop John, I was actually just discussing that very matter with His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday, and I join my hon. Friend in warmly congratulating the bishop on his position.

Tony Baldry: I warmly thank the Secretary of State for the £20 million grant for cathedrals, which has enabled some 41 cathedrals to carry out various works and repairs from fixing leaking roofs, repairing stained-glass windows and spires and carrying out many other important works to enable them to commemorate the centenary celebrations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that cathedrals are powerful symbols of our shared history and are also the envy of the world? They bring in many tourists, so this investment by the state in our cathedrals is great value for taxpayers.

Sajid Javid: Yes, I agree fully with my right hon. Friend. He will know that of the £20 million we allocated in that grant, £13 million has been used so there is still about £7 million left to go. I urge other cathedrals to take advantage of that and to work to help their local communities.

International Sporting Events

Damian Collins: What assistance his Department has provided to sports bodies to encourage world-class sporting events to be held in the UK.

Helen Grant: Through UK Sport, we have invested £27 million to bring more than 70 major sporting events to the UK. The Government also made available an extra £10 million to support last year’s excellent Tour de France Grand Départ.

Damian Collins: Does the Minister agree that the recent chaos at FIFA demonstrates that it is not fit to govern world football? Will she confirm that the Government would not support a future bid from England to host the World cup while the current leadership team at FIFA remains in place?

Helen Grant: In his letter to Sepp Blatter, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that FIFA could restore credibility by publishing Michael Garcia’s report and that failure to do so would
	“further damage…its own credibility”
	and
	“the reputation of football”.

Andrew Jones: The Minister will be aware that in Harrogate and Knaresborough we staged part of the hugely successful
	Grand Départ of the Tour de France this year. It had a huge impact on our tourism economy and will have a broader impact on the economy over the years ahead. Will the Minister assure the House that she will do everything she can to make it as easy as possible for major sporting events to be held here? By easy, I mean by providing support through measures such as ticketing assistance and an efficient visa system.

Helen Grant: I will do absolutely everything I possibly can to ensure that we continue to have major sporting events in this country. Such events are great for the economy, great for tourism and inspire people to get involved in sport.

Ofcom’s Appeals Process

John Robertson: When he plans to announce his decision on whether to change Ofcom’s appeals process.

Edward Vaizey: No decision has been made on the appeals process. However, we will make an announcement through the normal channels once we have reached a decision.

John Robertson: I thank the Minister for that extensive answer. May I urge him to consider Ofcom and the deal for mobile companies? For example, only 9% of people will switch companies. We have had the same kind of problems in the energy market and people are now working hand over fist trying to help people switch mobile phone providers. It takes seconds for a company to let somebody switch their phone, so it is time that those companies were brought to book and we need to give teeth to the regulator.

Edward Vaizey: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I tried to keep my answer as short as his rather radical haircut, which looks very impressive this morning. We are sympathetic to the concerns that the current framework for appeals against Ofcom’s decisions are costly and lengthy, but we need to strike the right balance between providing a proper right of challenge and allowing the regulator to make timely and effective decisions.

Rugby World Cup Tickets

Julie Elliott: What recent discussions he has had with the organisers of the 2015 rugby world cup on ticket touting.

Helen Grant: I meet often with the organisers of the rugby world cup and we continue to discuss ways to ensure that all fans can purchase tickets in a safe and secure way.

Julie Elliott: As a rugby fan, it appals me to see tickets for the rugby world cup being listed online for thousands of pounds. Will the Government now accept that they were wrong not to protect genuine fans from touts and support the amendment that the Lords have recently passed?

Helen Grant: As has already been clearly stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Government believe that organisers, promoters and ticket agents should do everything they can to find solutions to deal with the secondary market. Successive Governments and Select Committees have ruled, found and concluded that regulation should be a very last resort.

Mark Pawsey: Does the Minister agree that the 2015 world cup will be a fantastic celebration of the game of rugby? There will be plenty of tickets available at large stadia venues around the country, including Brighton, Milton Keynes, Newcastle and Leicester. That means that anyone wishing to watch a game during the rugby world cup will be able to do so.

Helen Grant: I thank my hon. Friend for his wonderfully positive remarks. We are of course aware of concerns, but we remain confident that this will be a great event and that tickets will get into the hands of genuine supporters and fans.

Children's Access to Creative Arts

Fiona Mactaggart: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of children’s access to the creative arts; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Vaizey: Between 2012 and 2015, we are going to invest £15 million in cultural education and we are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in music education.

Fiona Mactaggart: Yet his own Department’s survey shows that a third of secondary boys and a fifth of secondary girls do not access arts activities outside schools. In a recent speech the Secretary of State for Education said that arts were not the basis for a successful career, yet the creative industries provide 6% of our national wealth. What is the Minister doing to increase children’s access to arts beyond school?

Edward Vaizey: The Secretary of State for Education was not saying that. She was simply making the point that a lot of people said that doing a maths or science degree narrowed children’s career opportunities. She was correcting that impression; it was not an either/or. Both channels are good ways to get wonderful career opportunities after leaving school.
	We are working with Into Film, providing film education for hundreds of thousands of children. We are working with English Heritage on the new heritage schools initiative, which has massively increased engagement with heritage already. We are funding the Sorrell Saturday clubs, and we are working with the Arts Council on arts awards and the pioneering Artsbox.

Philip Hollobone: The situation that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) describes is not the situation in Kettering, where there are loads of dance, ballet, theatre and other groups, with many dedicated and committed volunteers. Would my hon. Friend the Minister like to take this opportunity to
	praise all those volunteers and all the mums and dads who put the extra effort in outside school to ensure that their children engage in worthwhile activities?

Edward Vaizey: I certainly would. It is important to recognise the massive contribution that volunteers make. I take this opportunity, as I always do, to praise the hon. Gentleman himself. He is a towering and powerful local representative for his wonderful constituency.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is right. The Education Secretary said that choosing arts subjects held back pupils for the rest of their lives. Our arts and creative sector is a key part of what makes this country great, and an economic powerhouse for us, which we saw at this week’s launch of the Creative Industries Federation. Ensuring that pupils get a good creative education is important for the development of each and every one of them, but also necessary to build the audience and the work force for those industries in the future.
	Should the Culture Secretary not be making sure that this Education Secretary, unlike the previous one, supports creativity in schools rather than devaluing it, which is exactly what she is doing?

Edward Vaizey: The previous Education Secretary was the one who ring-fenced music education and funded cultural education programmes. This Education Secretary has increased the budget for music education by £18 million. By praising the opportunities that are provided by science and maths education, one does not denigrate cultural education. This Education Secretary takes cultural education extremely seriously, and the Department for Education is a joy to work with in supporting our programmes.

Mr Speaker: We move on to Topical Questions. Colleagues, led by the Secretary of State, might wish shortly to join me in congratulating Switzerland on winning the Davis cup last weekend for the first time—a great team effort, notable among other things for the inimitable brilliance of Mr Roger Federer.

Topical Questions

Jake Berry: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Sajid Javid: May I begin by saying how saddened I was to learn this morning that the young Australian cricketer Phil Hughes has died. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in saying that our thoughts are with his team mates, his friends and his family.
	I take this opportunity to congratulate Lewis Hamilton on his second Formula 1 world title, to applaud the record crowd that supported England’s women at Wembley this Sunday and to wish a happy 20th birthday to the national lottery.

Jake Berry: Today is Lancashire day, when we celebrate all that is great about the red rose county. Will my right hon. Friend join me in celebrating Lancashire, and encourage people to come and visit our tourist attractions
	such as East Lancashire railway, Healey Dell and Turton Tower, as well as the other tourism jewels in the red rose county?

Sajid Javid: I will wholeheartedly join my hon. Friend, not least because I was born in Lancashire and it is my home county, so I know more than most, perhaps, about everything that Lancashire has to offer by way of attractions, sites and heritage. Lancashire day is a fantastic day to showcase that.

Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State knows a lot about social investment tax relief. I worked happily with him on many aspects of crowdfunding, and he knows that crowdfunding provides an amazing opportunity for people to get together to start cultural and artistic events and raise the money for that. Will he have a quiet word with his old boss, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about increasing the cap on social investment tax relief before the autumn statement?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see what is in the autumn statement, but he raises an important point. I remember the discussions we had about crowdfunding, and he is right about the importance that it has for businesses and also for cultural activities. I have discussed that on many occasions with colleagues.

Mark Pawsey: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the town of Rugby is the birthplace of the great game in which England’s men were world cup winners in 2003 and they were awarded the freedom of the borough of Rugby. Will he join me in congratulating England’s women rugby players on winning their world cup earlier this year and on their award of the freedom of the borough of Rugby, which will be made at a ceremony in Rugby next month?

Helen Grant: It is fantastic that the women’s team is visiting Rugby on 10 December. I am very pleased that they are being rightly recognised in the same way as the men were when they won the world cup in 2003. The support that our women’s team has been receiving is brilliant.

Sharon Hodgson: I thank the Sports Minister for her diligent work in securing the funding for our GB basketball teams from Sport England, which means that our women’s team can go off to take part in the EuroBasket tournament next year. Does the hon. Lady agree that supporting elite team sports should be the role of UK Sport? Does she therefore share my hope that the consultation currently under way on the future of UK Sport will result on it focusing on delivering social value and support for team sports, as well as medals?

Helen Grant: Sport England and UK Sport together do a very good job in supporting not only elite sport, but grass-roots sport.

Guy Opperman: As a cricketer, I echo the sympathies for the wonderful Phil Hughes, whose loss is tragic.
	I welcome the announcement that Ponteland middle school will have a new artificial grass football pitch funded by the Premier League, the Football Association and Sport England. May I urge the DCMS to carry out an audit of all my constituency so that other pitches may be installed very soon?

Helen Grant: I am delighted that Ponteland community middle school has been successful in its application. Artificial pitches are amazing and increase participation, community involvement and talent development, which is how we will grow the game. I am happy to look, with my hon. Friend, at what scope there might be for further projects.

Gavin Shuker: Given reports that alcohol advertising in Formula 1 might go the same way as tobacco advertising, and given that this is an area where there has been some concern in the past, can the Minister give an assurance that any discussions that are entered into with Formula 1 teams will be open and accountable, and will seek to preserve our great British motorsport industry as well?

Helen Grant: The great British motorsport industry is an incredible industry and we must look after it. I am happy to have a chat with the hon. Gentleman about the issues that he raises.

John Leech: Does the Secretary of State agree with the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) who said last week that £2.80 or so a week for the BBC
	“is tremendous value, but only if you watch it.”
	Given that over 96% of people access the BBC every week, does that not show what good value the licence fee is?

Sajid Javid: Like my hon. Friend, I am very proud of the BBC. It is well respected not just at home, but abroad, and rightly so. However, we have to recognise that there have been serious changes in technology over the past decade, and when the charter review takes place, all issues should be looked at, including those raised by colleagues.

Stephen Hepburn: On the 20th anniversary of the national lottery, it is a fact that twice as many households in the north-east play the lottery, compared with London, but the region receives only half the grants that London gets. Does the Minister think that is fair?

Helen Grant: I do not think that is correct. It seems that over the past 10 years 80% of lottery grants were for outside London.

Oliver Colvile: May I add my condolences to those already expressed on the death of Phil Hughes? I declare an interest, as my brother is Sky television’s cricket correspondent.
	I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for meeting me and a delegation from Plymouth earlier this month to talk about Mayflower 2020, the anniversary
	of the founding of the American colonies. Does he agree that Mayflower 2020 could contribute similar levels of growth in Devon and Cornwall to those we have seen from the “Gathering” in Northern Ireland and Ireland?

Sajid Javid: I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend and representatives from his constituency to discuss that important point in history, which I think it is right to mark. Another good reason to look at it is that it could do a lot for the local economy.

Chi Onwurah: Five years ago the previous Labour Government made a commitment on universal broadband access for everyone. The Minister might talk superfast, but the fact is that up and down the country people and businesses are waiting to get decent broadband so that they can carry on their business and that essential part of their lives that is now lived online. What is he going to do about it?

Edward Vaizey: Five years ago the previous Labour Government made an unfunded commitment to deliver 2 megabits broadband. There was no way that they would be able to see that through. We have doubled the availability of superfast broadband and provided 2 megabits to 97% of the country. One in four now have superfast broadband. We have the best broadband in the EU big five, and the cheapest.

Duncan Hames: What discussions has the hon. Lady had with her colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that in growing towns such as Chippenham development brings more sports pitches and pavilions, not fewer?

Helen Grant: Our £1 billion youth and community strategy helps to ensure that lots more people engage in and enjoy sport. Sport England has also recently invested £70 million in improving facilities.

Ian Lavery: The Newcastle United supporters trust fully supports Labour’s football governance strategy, which will mean that for the first time supporters will be guaranteed a place on the board. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the trust on developing a credit union in the best interests of the supporters and people in the north-east?

Helen Grant: I am very happy to congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I know that supporters always have the best interests of their club at heart, and I think that it is very important that their voice is always heard.

David Nuttall: It is clear from the number of complaints I have received that the Telephone Preference Service is simply not working. I urge the Secretary of State to take whatever action is needed to stop nuisance telephone calls.

Edward Vaizey: Ofcom ran an inquiry into the Telephone Preference Service, which showed that being a member does significantly reduce the number of nuisance calls received. As my hon. Friend must be aware, we have consulted extensively and changed the law in order to reduce the impact of nuisance calls.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, Mr Andrew Jones.

Andrew Jones: We have heard about the success of our tourism section, but the business tourism sector is sometimes overlooked. The conference market is very international and huge in scale. It plays a significant role in my constituency, with the Harrogate International Centre driving much of our local economy. I ask the Minister to focus on that, alongside all her other work to promote our tourism sector.

Helen Grant: I am happy to focus on that and to do everything I possibly can to support our wonderful tourism sector.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Under-occupancy Penalty (Disabled People)

John Spellar: What assessment she has made of the effects of the under-occupancy penalty on disabled people.

Mark Harper: The removal of the spare room subsidy is just making sure that the same rules apply in the social housing sector as apply in the private sector, as implemented by the previous Labour Government. To deal with difficult cases, the Government have made available a significant amount of discretionary housing payment to give local authorities the flexibility they need to deal with cases where disabled people need more support.

John Spellar: According to the Government’s own evaluation, 68% of those hit by the bedroom tax are themselves disabled or have someone in their household with a disability. Is the Minister not ashamed of that figure? When will the Government scrap that cruel and unfair tax?

Mark Harper: I note that the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the point that I made. We are treating people in the social housing sector in exactly the same way as the previous Government treated them—[Interruption.] I hear someone heckling on the Labour Benches. Disabled people do not get a spare room subsidy in the private sector. Those rules were implemented by the previous Labour Government. This is a matter of fairness. The £345 million we have made available to local authorities over the past two years for discretionary housing payment gives them the flexibility they need to deal with individual circumstances.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister name and shame the five worst local authorities that have the largest number of disabled people who are affected by the spare room subsidy removal but are not using the discretionary funds that the Government have given them?

Mark Harper: I am afraid that I cannot satisfy my hon. Friend on that this morning, but it is a very good idea. I will write to him with the information and put a copy in the Library of the House.

John Leech: I was going to ask exactly the same question as the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). Will the Minister name and shame all local authorities that are failing to provide discretionary housing benefit for people who are being penalised as a result of their disability?

Mark Harper: We do have records of the amount of money that the Government make available to local authorities. In the interests of transparency, I will put in the Library details of the money made available by the Government and the extent to which local authorities take up that generous allocation of funding.

Mr Speaker: No colleague need be shy; repetition is not an unknown phenomenon in the House of Commons.

Equal Pay

Chi Onwurah: What steps she is taking to ensure equal pay for men and women.

Alex Cunningham: What steps she is taking to ensure equal pay for men and women.

Jo Swinson: It is good to see that over the past year the gender pay gap has fallen significantly to 19.1%—its lowest ever level. However, we are determined to build on this, and our aim must be to eliminate the gender pay gap. We are promoting pay transparency through the Think, Act, Report initiative; transforming the workplace to ensure flexible working and shared parental leave; and, through the Your Life campaign, encouraging girls and young women to consider a wide range of careers, including well-paid careers in technology and engineering.

Chi Onwurah: On Monday, the headline in Newcastle’s The Journal was “Women pay high price for the long slump”, highlighting the fact that in the north-east the gender pay gap is rising; in Newcastle, it stands at 16%. Why is the Minister’s Government making women pay for the financial crisis caused by the banks, and what is she going to do about it?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady is rather interesting in her portrayal of the circumstances that led up to the financial crisis, particularly regarding the part that her party’s Government might have had to play in that situation. I have pointed out that this Government are absolutely determined to eliminate the pay gap and to make sure that it continues to fall as it has over the past year. We also have a situation where there are more women in work than ever before. We have created 2 million extra jobs over the course of this Government’s time in office, and unemployment has been falling across the country, including in the north-east of England.

Alex Cunningham: The Minister talks of grand initiatives, but the hourly rate of pay for women working part time is a third less than that for their full-time counterparts. Given that 42% of all working women now work part time, does the Minister think that it is time for big companies to publish the average hourly pay for men and women in their work force to expose this continued pay gap?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman raises several issues. It is true that, for men and women, part-time work is often paid at a lower rate. Of course, as he points out, many women are working part time. This is an important issue where we need generally to value much more the contribution made by people working part time. Organisations such as Timewise are doing some wonderful work that tries to remove the stigma around working part time by highlighting people at very senior levels who are doing so. He is right that transparency is a really important tool in making sure that this can be tackled. That is why we have the Think, Act, Report initiative to encourage companies to think about and act on the issue, but also, crucially, to report on it.

Jake Berry: My hon. Friend talks about encouraging more women into engineering. In Rossendale and Darwen, we have a high-tech engineering work force. What steps are the Government taking to encourage women to take up these fantastic jobs in engineering, which tend to be some of the highest-paid in my constituency?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this as a hugely important issue. Only 7% of engineers are women, and these jobs, as he rightly says, are often very well paid. As the Perkins review set out very clearly, we urgently need more engineers in terms of our overall economy and skills, and we therefore need more women to fill that gap. We have announced a £30 million fund to increase the supply of engineers and encourage more women into the area, £10 million of which is specifically earmarked for our Developing Women Engineers programme. We are working with the Royal Academy of Engineering and with organisations such as the Institute of Physics, because making sure that girls take the subjects that open up an engineering career to them is also really important in making sure that this happens.

Gloria De Piero: We all praise companies such as Friends Life, Genesis Housing and PricewaterhouseCoopers which annually publish their gender pay gap because they want to reduce it, but there are too few examples of that. Can we therefore achieve cross-party consensus and will all the parties back Labour’s proposal—we will bring it to the House next month—to require all big companies to publish annually their pay gap?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady is quite right to say that there is cross-party agreement that this issue needs to be tackled. The 2010 equality strategy set out very clearly that we would pursue the voluntary approach and then assess how it was working and come to a conclusion about what needed to happen next. The hon. Lady will be aware that my party published proposals—I am delighted that her party has subsequently agreed with
	them—to implement section 78 of the Equality Act 2010. I am sure that the issue will be very much discussed in the approaching election and that all parties will want to set out very clearly how they propose to tackle the pay gap.

Charter for Women

Barry Sheerman: What discussions she has had with charities and pressure groups on a charter for women or a women’s bill of rights.

Nicky Morgan: I regularly engage with women’s organisations at one-to-one meetings, round tables and consultation events, and through social media. The Government are currently carrying out an online survey on women’s views of progress on improving women’s lives and on where there is most need for work still to be done. As part of that engagement, I regularly discuss the UN convention on women, which is sometimes known as the international Bill of Rights for women.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister knows that it has been a long, hard struggle to get equal rights for women and we are not there yet. There are significant elements in our communities who do not believe in equal rights for women. I want the Minister to introduce a charter that gives every female child in this country information on what their rights to equality are. I want that to be clear to every little child, wherever in this country they are brought up, whatever their family background and whichever school they attend. Does the Minister agree with that?

Nicky Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that, although we have made great strides towards equality, there is still much more to do. He will know that, as Secretary of State for Education, I have recently spoken of the broad and balanced curriculum, British values—which include, obviously, mutual respect and tolerance—and education on girls’ rights. I have not heard anybody apart from the hon. Gentleman call for a Bill of Rights. To be honest, I prefer to look at what works on the ground and make sure that there are lessons and strong female role models in all communities and all schools right across the country. Of course, however, the idea is interesting.

Mary Macleod: Women’s rights are incredibly important and we need to ensure that women are at the heart of decision making. My right hon. Friend is the Minister for Women and Equalities, but, unusually, no specific Committee of the House is tasked with holding the Government to account on the work of the Government Equalities Office. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the issue further, as I believe the right thing to do would be to set up a women and equalities Select Committee at the start of the next Session of Parliament?

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend very much indeed for that question. The Leader of the House is in his place and I am sure he will have heard her request.
	I am, of course, very happy to have a meeting. This is a matter for the House, but I look forward to discussing it with my hon. Friend.

David Winnick: If there was such a charter or Bill, would not there be an obligation on television companies, including the BBC, to explain why it is that, while men in their late 70s can carry out their job as lead presenters—and do it very well, no doubt—once women reach their 40s there is almost a ban? Why this discrimination?

Nicky Morgan: Perhaps for the first time, I think I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He might be interested to look at the evidence taken by the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications as part of its inquiry into women in broadcasting and the media, to which I recently gave evidence. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that having positive role models—women of all ages and all backgrounds—represented in the media and national newspapers is incredibly important.

Caroline Nokes: In England, 18-year-old women are a third more likely to apply for a university place than their male counterparts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows how far we have come in terms of girls’ educational attainment, but that there is still further to go?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we know, women now make up the majority of the numbers in many different subjects right across our universities. In fact, in the university I represent in my constituency of Loughborough, I understand that more women than men are taking engineering degrees. However, we all clearly have a long way to go.

Child Care

Virendra Sharma: What steps the Government have taken to support parents with child care responsibilities.

Jo Swinson: We have increased free early education hours for three and four-year-olds, and in September we extended it to 260,000 two-year-olds. From next autumn, almost 2 million people could benefit from the new tax-free child care scheme, worth up to £2,000 a child. From April, couples will be able to choose how they manage their child care responsibilities, as we have introduced shared parental leave.

Virendra Sharma: When Labour left office, 99% of schools provided access to breakfast and after-school clubs, but since the Government removed the ring fence, more than a third of local authorities report that the provision has been scaled back in their area. Does the Minister now agree that that was a mistake, and will she back our plan to legislate to give parents a guarantee?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue. After-school and breakfast clubs can be hugely important in enabling parents to manage their responsibilities. It is also important that schools have the ability to make choices about the services they offer. We have introduced legislation to make it easier and
	reduce the bureaucracy for schools deciding that that is indeed what they want to do. That should help to ensure there is greater provision of these important services.

Guy Opperman: I have been to Diandjims nursery at Prudhoe in Northumberland and seen the transformational effect of the free child care provision of 15 hours per week for two-year-olds. The lives of parents are transformed, because they can go back to work or get back into employment following the birth of their child.

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend raises an important example of the policy in action and working to deliver for hard-working families in his constituency. There are many such examples up and down the country. The policy is incredibly important for making sure that people do not have to choose not to work for economic reasons, which is why we are committed to taking it further.

Sharon Hodgson: Ministers trumpet tax-free child care, but the fact is that it will not have helped even one family that is struggling with child care costs during this entire Parliament. In fact, those who are struggling the most have had their support via child care tax credits cut, so why do Ministers not implement the policy sooner? While they are at it, why do they not adopt Labour’s commitment to providing 25 hours a week of free nursery education for all working families?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady will be aware that support through working tax credit for child care will rise to 85% under universal credit. She is right that we are introducing tax-free child care, which is coming in next autumn. The legislation to make that happen is going through the House, and I am delighted that it is happening. I have outlined the additional early education hours that the Government have delivered, including, crucially, making it available for two-year-olds for the first time. We know that it has significant benefits, and it has helped many working parents.

Retailers’ Purchasing Policies

Michael Fabricant: When she last met the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to discuss the effects of the purchasing policies of UK retailers on the rights of women and girls.

Jo Swinson: I regularly meet the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to discuss a range of issues, including supply chain transparency and human rights. I assure my hon. Friend that, following significant work by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), the British Retail Consortium is working with his Department to produce guidelines on this area for their members.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. The recent episode of the Mauritian T-shirt illustrates so clearly how very important this issue has become. What steps is she taking to ensure that other
	companies follow the example of some well-known partnerships that show how well they can source their supplies?

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Transparency is key so that investors and indeed customers are able to look at such matters and hold companies to account. We have introduced a requirement for a strategic report, which means that human rights need to be reported on, and further non-financial reporting will be helpful. Of course, the measures in the Modern Slavery Bill will make the UK a world leader in this area.

Mr Speaker: Very briefly—Fiona Mactaggart.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am very grateful for the measures in the Modern Slavery Bill. Will the Minister meet companies to make sure that they understand their responsibilities, because the Bill could end this exploitation of workers in UK supply chains?

Jo Swinson: First, I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who has done so much work on this particular issue. I am glad that she welcomes the measures brought forward in the Modern Slavery Bill. We are engaging with business on these issues. Indeed, next week I am going to a United Nations event, where there will be many very senior representatives from different businesses who are looking at these exact issues. As I have said, we are also working specifically with retailers on the British Retail Consortium guidance.

Domestic Violence Support Services

Luciana Berger: What assessment she has made of the effects of Government policies on domestic violence support services.

Nicky Morgan: The Government have ring-fenced funding of nearly £40 million until 2015 for specialist domestic and sexual violence services. The Home Office is working closely with the women’s sector on a programme of engagement with local commissioners. Earlier this week, the Government announced an additional £10 million of funding for refuges for victims of domestic abuse.

Luciana Berger: Despite what the Minister has said, women’s refuge charities report that services are still closing right across the country, with some areas having no refuge provision left at all. We need a comprehensive audit of domestic violence service provision to be carried out urgently. Why have the Government failed to do that and when will they do it?

Nicky Morgan: Because the Government have been putting the funding in. I have mentioned the £10 million that was announced this week. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has written to all local authorities this week to say that, even though the funding environment is extremely difficult, they must continue to prioritise the provision of refuges for victims of domestic abuse and domestic violence. Rather than talking about audits in Whitehall, we want to get on with giving money to the services on the ground to fund the valuable work that they are doing.

East Coast Main Line

Michael Dugher: (Urgent Question):To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the Government’s decision to award the franchise for the east coast main line.

Patrick McLoughlin: This morning, I announced the intention to award the InterCity east coast franchise to Stagecoach-Virgin, exactly on the schedule that we promised two years ago. That is great for passengers. It will bring more trains, faster trains, newer trains, better services and better value for money. It is good for towns and cities up and down the east coast. It is good for our economy and for jobs. It is proof that the right route forward for our railways is the private sector and the public sector working together. This deal will make the route of the Flying Scotsman a world-beater once again.
	We have heard different advice from the Opposition—led, of course, by the unions. They told us to leave the route in the hands of the emergency public sector operator. They do not understand how that would deny the east coast line new ideas and investment. They do not understand that the operator was set up as a short-term measure by the last Labour Secretary of State for Transport. That is why the noble Lord Adonis said at the time:
	“I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for us to have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2009; Vol. 712, c. 232.]
	Indeed, the then Minister of State at the Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), said that
	“one reason we are able to invest record sums in our railway service is the revenues that the franchises bring in and the premiums that they pay”.—[Official Report, 1 July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 430.]
	They were right then and they are wrong today.
	It is this Government who are powering ahead with better plans for our railways. The new franchise will be good for people who use the line. The deal will strengthen the vital links from London to Scotland, all the way along the route as far as Aberdeen and Inverness. Passengers will benefit from regular, faster, more frequent services to places such as Falkirk, Stirling and Edinburgh. Journeys between London and Edinburgh will regularly be down to just 4 hours by May 2020. Leeds will see regular journey times go down to just 2 hours.
	Places such as Leeds, Bradford, Shipley and Harrogate will see more direct services each day. Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Huddersfield and Dewsbury will get new east coast services. There will be the first direct service from Huddersfield to London since the 1960s. Lincoln, which gets just one train a day to London under the current operator, will get one every two hours with the new one. We have protected the service levels to every current main line station as well. By May 2020, all those destinations will be served by the new intercity express trains, which will be built in the heart of the north-east at the new plant in Newton Aycliffe.
	I ask the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher): why does he want to deny the north all those benefits? The new operator will provide 50% more capacity across the east coast network, a 40% increase
	in peak seats to and from King’s Cross, and a refurbishment of the existing fleet. It will cut some of the most expensive fares by 10% from May next year.
	The franchise is not just good for the passengers; it is good for the staff. There will be investment in skills, with a graduate programme and new apprenticeships. There will be a national academy for rail professional education based in London, York and Derby. The franchise is good for taxpayers, too. It will run for eight years, with the option to extend it for a further year. In that time, it will return £3.3 billion in premium payments to the taxpayer. These figures are robust and have been subject to rigorous scrutiny, including by independent auditors. The deal will bring more services, more passengers and a growing return.
	The Government’s franchising programme is creating the railways that this country needs. Passengers in Essex, London and the south-east already benefit from the improved services that a partnership between the public and private sectors can provide for our railways. This award is further proof that private competition is good for passengers, staff, communities and taxpayers. The quality of the new operator’s plans will benefit the whole country.

Michael Dugher: If this is such a good deal, why did the Secretary of State not offer to come to the House and make a statement, to share all the good news with us? Are the Government desperate to avoid scrutiny of their shambolic approach to franchising, which has cost the taxpayer millions of pounds?
	First we had the west coast fiasco, which wasted £50 million, and then Ministers presided over the loss of hundreds of millions more, with delays to investments and franchise extensions. Now, on the east coast main line, we see Conservative dogma on privatisation put before the interests of the travelling public.
	It is absurd in the extreme that our own public operator should be the only rail company in the world that has been barred from challenging to run its own services. It is not too late to halt the process, but given that the Secretary of State is adamant that it will go ahead, that we are only months away from an election and that there is no political consensus for this major decision, will he give a formal written ministerial direction to his permanent secretary to outline that he is still insisting on proceeding with this flawed process?
	The Government say that £3.3 billion will be paid to the Exchequer over eight years, but the operator says it will be £2.3 billion. Why the discrepancy? Is the Secretary of State’s announcement already unravelling? Given that Virgin charges some of the highest peak fares in the country on the west coast, will passengers on the east coast main line face more fare rises to pay for this decision? Is it time that the Government legislated to allow a British not-for-profit public sector operator to take on and challenge train operators on a level playing field?
	It is clear that the whole franchise process should never have happened. It was rushed through on a rigged political timetable, and by the time this service is privatised it will have paid more than £1 billion to the Exchequer. The entire process is a disgrace. The taxpayer and the travelling public have been sold down the river.

Mr Speaker: Order. I point out that this urgent question got off to an over-long start because in seeking to be informative, the Secretary of State went way beyond the allotted time for a ministerial response. I want to accommodate colleagues but we have a short period, so pithiness is of the essence.

Patrick McLoughlin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the hon. Member for Barnsley East to his position. He is no stranger to the Department for Transport because he was special adviser to Stephen Byers when he was Transport Secretary—a time of glorious indecision for our railways. This is the third shadow Secretary of State I have witnessed during my short time at the Department. No doubt if I wait a bit longer, another one will be along shortly.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned dogma, but I think the dogma comes from the party that did not implement any of these measures when it was in a position to do so. When Labour had 13 years to set up a public sector operator, it rejected that. Directly operated railways were always there as a matter of last resort. On the subject of dogma, the hon. Gentleman is speaking for ASLEF and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, repeating what they are saying almost word for word. They have given more than £350,000 and £220,000 respectively to the Labour party, so I will not accept comments about dogma from Labour Members.
	I am also interested in what the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) said on franchising:
	“One of the purposes of franchising is to ensure that we get better value in respect of the subsidy paid in the particular case, but we also want better services.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 703-4.]
	That is exactly what I have announced this morning for the east coast main line: better services to towns and cities that have not been served since the 1960s. The party that represents dogma sits on the Opposition Benches; the party challenging Britain’s railways and companies to come forward with new and better services, serving more communities than ever, sits on the Government Benches. We have seen the railways grow, from providing services for 760 million passengers to providing them for 1.6 billion passengers last year. This is a time of great renaissance for the railways—something that I celebrate, but the Opposition complain about.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Extreme brevity is now required. Let us be led by Mr Philip Davies.

Philip Davies: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Secretary of State knows, I have long lobbied for additional railway services on the east coast line to Shipley and Bradford, so I very much welcome his statement today. Will he confirm exactly how many additional services there will be to Shipley and Bradford, when they will come on track and what can be done to try to speed up the process?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am very happy to write to my hon. Friend with the exact details of how many extra services there will be. There will be a great increase, with six services overall to Shipley—in 2018-19, I think—as a result of the new intercity express programme trains that will serve the line. I am happy to provide my hon. Friend with more information in due course.

Julie Elliott: Why do the Government think it is better for our country to pass the profitable east coast main line into private hands, with money going to shareholders rather than the people of this country, and throw out TUPE regulations, which will jeopardise the terms and conditions of the work force on the east coast main line?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am not quite sure why the new old Labour party, led by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), is so concerned about profits. Profits are not a bad thing. They go towards paying pensions and towards rewarding people who invest in companies. A number of people the hon. Lady represents rely on pensions that are generated by profits. That, I would have thought, is a good thing. It is not just about profits. The overall return to the rail franchises is 3%. Investment by the rail companies has resulted in tremendously better services for passengers up and down the country.

Alan Beith: Does the Secretary of State recognise that what matters to my constituents is not who owns the operator but whether the trains are on time, clean, reasonably priced, retain good staff and stop at places such as Berwick and Alnmouth?

Patrick McLoughlin: Indeed. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the new trains, which will be built in the north-east shortly, will be of tremendous benefit on this particular line and will provide the investment the line has wanted for many a year.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I hope the Secretary of State will forgive me if I do not share his enthusiasm for today’s announcement. Some of us have been here before, with private sector companies promising the earth to win contracts and then not delivering in practice. Why did the Government not listen to local people and keep the excellent East Coast in place as a public sector comparator? What will he do to ensure the promises that have been made will be delivered?

Patrick McLoughlin: The people who are serving on East Coast trains now will be the people serving on the new InterCity franchise that I have announced today. I will quote another Labour Member of Parliament; that seems to be a bit of a habit this morning. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said:
	“will he be fair to the marvellous train crews of Virgin Trains, who give extraordinarily good service, and tell them that their future is assured? Will he simply award the franchise to Virgin, which has carried it out brilliantly?”—[Official Report, 15 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 53.]
	In fairness, he was referring to the west coast main line, but if I go back to that statement I could quote those people time and again.

Edward Leigh: For years in north Lincolnshire, we have been arguing to get back our through-train from London to Grimsby via Market Rasen. At the moment, the train stops at Lincoln. What hope is there of getting back our train?

Patrick McLoughlin: If my hon. Friend presses me further, I will certainly come back to him in more detail. It is tremendous news that we have increased the number of trains to Lincoln to six a day, but I know that colleagues want services to go elsewhere, which is why the study being done with northern authorities on the northern powerhouse strategy is looking at how to improve connectivity for our market towns and cities in the north.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Secretary of State agree that both times the private sector has run the east coast line it has been a failure, whereas the public sector, which has been running it for some considerable time, has handed over more than £1 billion to the Treasury? Why change a winning formula? Why does he not agree with the 70% of the population—I am one of them—who believe that rail should be brought back into public ownership?

Patrick McLoughlin: I wish I could say I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s announcement that he is one of those who would like to see the railways re-nationalised. When we had a nationalised railway system, it was dying on its legs. It was providing only 760 million journeys a year, whereas today’s railway provides 1.6 billion and employs more people—more people working on our railways, more people using our railways. I thought he would welcome the fact that instead of a dying, declining industry, today it is a vibrant industry employing more people and improving opportunities for everyone, whatever their background. I celebrate that; he is disappointed by it.

Andrew Percy: There is no doubt that the east coast rail service has been good over the past five years, but it has lacked new investment, so I welcome today’s announcement. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the thing we hope for and desire—direct rail services to Grimsby, in my case via Scunthorpe—remains a possibility and that he will work with us to see how viable it is?

Patrick McLoughlin: I shall certainly work with my hon. Friend to see whether we can accommodate what he wants. As I have often pointed out, 25 years ago I was a junior Minister in the Department for Transport, and in those days it was thought that the railways were yesterday’s business. Today, wherever I go, I am lobbied by MPs for more direct services from their constituencies. I celebrate that we are today announcing 75 new destinations for this service.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Secretary of State not realise that most people in Yorkshire think that privatisation has been a disaster for train services across our region? It has been rotten, and it will still be rotten under this new arrangement. We do not believe in pie in the sky. I am not the most radical Member on the Labour Benches, but I have been persuaded that we need to take the rail system back into public ownership. That is what we deserve.

Patrick McLoughlin: I think the person who has just spoken is the hon. Member for Huddersfield, yet we heard not a single welcome for the new train service to Huddersfield. He would rather talk about dogma than
	celebrate the first direct link to his area since 1960. That sums up the Labour party 100%: it is the Labour party of Kinnock, rather than Blair or Brown.

James Wharton: More trains; more investment; more money back for taxpayers; a link for Thornaby, in my constituency; a link for Middlesbrough; trains built down the road in Aycliffe—does my right hon. Friend agree that this is good news not just for passengers and taxpayers, but for the economy of Teesside?

Patrick McLoughlin: Indeed it is. The decision by Hitachi to base its plant in the north-east, bringing more than 700 new jobs to the area, has been universally welcomed.

Karl Turner: Why is the only public operator effectively barred from competing and operating the line, despite having reinvested £800 million into services rather than into the pockets of shareholders?

Patrick McLoughlin: For the sake of brevity, I will refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answers.

Julian Smith: I welcome the statement. It is great news that Yorkshire will get so many services from this deal. Could the Secretary of State say a little more about services to Harrogate and Thirsk, which serve my constituency, and more about Skipton? I know that my right hon. Friend was thrown off the station at Settle, but I hope he will fight for a Skipton daily service.

Patrick McLoughlin: What I am announcing today is extra services right across the line. I hope that the services to my hon. Friend’s constituency will see the benefits of that, as well as of the new intercity express trains, which will be coming on course in just a few years’ time.

Mr Speaker: I cannot imagine the Secretary of State being “thrown”. It would be deeply onerous task, accomplished not without emotion.

Cathy Jamieson: The Secretary of State has made much of the potential benefits for employees, but is it not the case that he has ensured that TUPE will not apply, thus jeopardising the terms and conditions of the work force?

Patrick McLoughlin: I think the hon. Lady is on to a technical point, but it will be a transfer over. It is a transfer over of the staff, who will be there on the same terms and conditions as they are at the moment—apart from those employed by Agility Trains.

Menzies Campbell: When will the better services to which my right hon. Friend refers include the electrification of the east coast main line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen? I ask that not least because it serves four stations in my constituency.

Patrick McLoughlin: That may be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. If my right hon. and learned Friend does not mind, I would prefer to write to him about that.

Stephen Hepburn: As a regular user of this service, I agree with the Secretary of State that East Coast making a profit is not a bad thing. The difference is that we want that £1 billion profit going back to the people of this country—not lining the pockets of his Tory friends.

Patrick McLoughlin: The fact is, as I said, that directly operated railways have basically paid £1 billion to the Exchequer over the past five years. The new intercity express will pay £3.3 billion over eight years.

Andrew Jones: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, particularly in respect of the six additional trains per day running between London and Harrogate. I think this is a transformation of our services in Harrogate and Knaresborough. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that this deal represents a huge boost—not just to our part of the economy, but to that of the whole of the north of England?

Patrick McLoughlin: I do indeed. My hon. Friend can look forward to those extra services for his constituency, along with the others to which I have referred. We are talking, basically, about an increase of some 33% of services across the board, with 75 new destinations being served as a result of this morning’s announcement.

Graeme Morrice: Unlike the currently successful and profitable publicly-owned service on the east coast main line, the previous two private operators failed—a point raised by my hon. Friends. What guarantee can the Secretary of State give that this latest franchise will not be third time unlucky?

Patrick McLoughlin: Let me simply point out that a number of things have changed. The hon. Gentleman refers to franchises that were left by the last Government. Issues have been changed by this Government, and all the other franchises on the railways are currently running to the budgets that we have required of them. Some of them are subsidy receiving, but most are premium payments.

Anne McIntosh: Thirsk and Malton will welcome a public-private partnership delivered by tried and tested operators. Will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be increased services from York that will take a shorter time, and will he let us know the balance between first class premium fares and standard class fares?

Patrick McLoughlin: I might have to write to my hon. Friend on the details of the balance between premium and standard fares, but we have seen a tremendous improvement with the technology surrounding advanced booking, giving people some very good deals when they book their tickets in advance.

Helen Goodman: Whoever runs the franchise, trains will be made at Newton Aycliffe. Will the Secretary of State please explain why he was quite content for a French nationalised industry to bid, but not for a British one to do the same?

Patrick McLoughlin: I have no objection to foreign companies wanting to invest in this country. I would have thought that the hon. Lady would welcome the fact that Hitachi
	is building new plants in Newton Aycliffe. She is not decrying Hitachi because it is a foreign company, is she? I have no objection to foreign countries wanting to invest in the United Kingdom. I welcome it.

Jason McCartney: We shall have 3,000 extra seats during the morning peak time, 65 new state-of-the-art trains, a 10% reduction in long-distance Anytime fares and the first direct service from Huddersfield to London since 1960. Will my right hon. Friend continue to put passengers at the forefront of these new services?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, but I should point out to him that this is not just about passengers. It is also about staff—the staff who deliver a fantastic service on the east coast main line, and who will now be given better training. I think that the national academy—which, as I said earlier, will be based in London, York and Derby—is very good news for the people who work on our railways, as well as the passengers who travel on them.

Alison McGovern: Virgin fares on the west coast main line are excruciating. Will the Secretary of State tell us what he can do to protect passengers on the east coast line?

Patrick McLoughlin: As I have said, some of the top fares will be reduced by 10% in May. Moreover, if passengers buy tickets in advance, they can obtain some very good deals.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has announced extra investment in our railways, extra services, extra trains, extra seats, and British-built trains for British passengers? Does he share my dismay at the economic illiteracy of Opposition Members, given that this is a good deal for passengers, a good deal for everyone who wants our economy to improve and a good deal for taxpayers, who will receive £3.5 billion back from these companies?

Patrick McLoughlin: I do not think that I need to answer my hon. Friend’s questions, apart from the one about whether I was surprised by the attitude of the Opposition. The answer to that question is no.

Chi Onwurah: The Secretary of State’s idea of a public-private partnership seems to be “Private failure and public bail-out; private profit and public subsidy.” When I catch the train to Newcastle in two hours’ time I will ask the staff what they think, but in the meantime, can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no reduction in direct services from Newcastle to London, no increase in prices—and no action from the Government when they fail to deliver on their long list of promises?

Patrick McLoughlin: What I have announced amounts to extra points. But I see that we have now been joined by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). I can do no better than quote what he said when he was Transport Secretary:
	“franchising is to ensure that we get better value in respect of the subsidy paid in the particular case”. —[Official Report, 1 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 703-4.]
	We also get better services. There will be increased services and faster services from Newcastle, and I think that the people of Newcastle will get a better deal.

Smith Commission

Alistair Carmichael: With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement to the House about the further devolution process in Scotland and the publication of the heads of agreement resulting from Lord Smith’s five-party talks. As the Prime Minister has already said this morning, we back the agreement and its recommendations, and will produce draft legislation in January.
	The referendum on independence that was held on 18 September 2014 saw Scotland vote decisively to remain within our UK family of nations of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, backed by the strength, security and stability of the United Kingdom. The turnout across Scotland was nearly 85%, and more than 2 million people made a positive choice for Scotland to remain part of the UK.
	During the referendum campaign, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made a joint commitment to deliver more powers to the Scottish Parliament. The Smith commission, chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, was up and running on 19 September, and Lord Smith convened cross-party talks to reach agreement on the proposals for further devolution to Scotland. The process has been thorough and extensive. The party representatives were drawn from the five main political parties in Scotland; this was the first time ever that all five had participated in a devolution process.
	I would echo the comments of Lord Smith in the foreword to his report:
	“This agreement is, in itself, an unprecedented achievement. It demanded compromise from all of the parties. In some cases that meant moving to devolve greater powers than they had previously committed to, while for other parties it meant accepting the outcome would fall short of their ultimate ambitions. It shows that, however difficult, our political leaders can come together, work together, and reach agreement with one another.”
	In preparing the report, Lord Smith heard from a wide range of Scottish civic institutions and members of the public. Over 400 submissions were received from organisations and groups, and over 18,000 submissions, including e-mails, letters and signatures to petitions, from people across Scotland.
	The Smith commission has today produced comprehensive heads of agreement ahead of the St Andrew’s day deadline contained in the timetable. This is a significant achievement and historic moment for Scotland. I thank Lord Smith and the party representatives for their work. They have worked hard against a challenging timetable, covering an enormous area of ground. This work will deliver a substantial package of new powers to the Scottish Parliament.
	The heads of agreement provide for a durable but responsive constitutional settlement for Scotland within the United Kingdom. They give greater financial responsibility to the Scottish Parliament, with an updated fiscal framework for Scotland, consistent with the UK fiscal framework. For the first time, over 50% of the money spent by the Scottish Government will be raised by the Scottish Government. That is an important step which builds on the measures brought forward by this Government in the Scotland Act 2012, and further increases the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament to the Scottish people.
	The recommendations provide for key welfare measures to be designed by and delivered in Scotland. That will give the Scottish Parliament the tools—and the responsibility—to tackle a range of issues with specific consideration of local circumstances, including those related to social care, long-term unemployment and housing, while continuing to benefit from the strength and stability of the UK-wide system.
	The recommendations build on the already significant powers of the Scottish Parliament in social justice and a range of other policy areas. Together, those recommendations give greater responsibility for more decisions affecting Scotland to be made in the Scottish Parliament and paid for by revenue raised by the Scottish Parliament. However, further devolution is just one part of this story. People in Scotland were unequivocally clear on 18 September that Scotland should retain the security of being part of our United Kingdom. The Smith commission’s remit was clear—to set out proposals for further devolution within the United Kingdom—and that remit was signed up to by all parties participating in the process, including the Scottish Government. The conclusions reached by the parties ensure a set of proposals that do not cause detriment to the UK as a whole or any of its constituent parts. The Government are committed to ensuring that Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom continue to prosper from our single domestic market, our social union and the strength that comes from the pooling and sharing of risks.
	People in Scotland voted on 18 September for the jobs and opportunities that are created by being part of a larger United Kingdom with one currency, no borders and more money to spend on public services. People in Scotland want to keep the advantages of the UK pound, UK pensions, UK armed forces and a strong UK voice in the world. The package that has been announced today allows that to happen.
	As the Prime Minister has already made clear, the Government back the heads of agreement and their recommendations and we shall get on with producing draft legislation. The draft clauses will be produced by Burns night, 25 January, meeting the next phase in our commitment to the people in Scotland. That work begins today. A team has been brought together with leading officials in the Scotland Office, HM Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Cabinet Office. That team will work closely with all lead policy Departments within the UK Government. The team will remain in place to deliver a Bill in the UK Parliament following the next general election.
	To support the preparation of the draft legislation, I have invited key Scottish stakeholders representing a wide range of sectors to form a stakeholder group. I shall provide further details of the membership and terms of reference of the group in due course, but it is my intention that it will support the Government’s work translating the heads of agreement into the draft legislation that we shall publish by 25 January. As Lord Smith said in his foreword:
	“Through this process I have worked closely with people who can argue passionately with one another while sharing an equal concern and love for their country. I would like to thank them all for their input, challenge and support. I hope that, in the end, they can work together, maintain their energy and use it to create a Scotland which is even stronger and even better.”
	Having a more powerful Scottish Parliament inside a strong United Kingdom is the best outcome for the
	people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom. This is what we voted for on 18 September. Today’s report is an affirmation of the vow that was made in September. It is a historic moment for Scotland.
	The cause of home rule has been at the heart of Scottish politics since the days of Gladstone. This agreement provides a modern blueprint: Scottish home rule within our strong United Kingdom—home rule for Scotland that can open the door to constitutional reform for the rest of the United Kingdom. We can achieve home rule all round.

Margaret Curran: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and join him in thanking Lord Smith of Kelvin for his work and his report, and indeed all the commissioners. I want to pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), whose proposals during the referendum set us on the way to delivering this momentous agreement to deliver a powerhouse Parliament.
	As the Secretary of State has said, this is a historic day for Scotland. Ten weeks ago the people of Scotland—in overwhelming numbers—confirmed Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. It was a decision made on the highest turnout ever seen in these isles, and it was a vote for change: change in the way Scotland is governed, change that will see more decisions taken closer to people, but safer, faster, better change as part of the United Kingdom. This is a promise kept and an agreement delivered.
	The Labour party was very clear that we would honour the promises made during the referendum, and we have delivered. As the Secretary of State has said, this has been achieved in a co-operative and constructive process, working in the spirit of consensus that people across Scotland expect. That is why we wholly endorse the recommendations of the Smith commission and we give our guarantee to the people of Scotland that if—or, rather, when—we are in government after May, we will legislate for these powers in our first Queen’s Speech.
	This agreement will see more powers over tax, welfare and jobs transferred to the Scottish Parliament. We have secured guarantees over the voting rights of Scottish MPs on the Budget and on the continuation of the Barnett formula. We believe this provides the best deal for the people of Scotland. In fact, today’s deal is more radical and goes further than many had anticipated. We on this side of the House believe that the principle we have worked for today—pushing power closer to people—is one that should be followed across Britain. That is why we will continue to call for a constitutional convention to be established to consider how this can be achieved, working with all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
	Now that agreement has been reached, will the Secretary of State tell the House how the recommendations of the Smith commission will be implemented and what the timetable will be, and will he specifically and in detail outline how hon. Members will be involved in this next stage of the process, as the draft clauses are produced?
	Given the success of cross-party working that is inherent in the work of the Smith commission, will the Secretary of State outline how the parties will be involved in this stage, and how the Opposition will be consulted on the details he announced in his statement?
	As Lord Smith pointed out in his statement this morning, these additional powers will also mean that the Scottish Parliament’s own processes will need to be strengthened to enable it to hold the Government to account. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what consultation there will now be with the Scottish Parliament to ensure that it is well-prepared for this transfer of powers?
	Lord Smith also recommended closer working between the Scottish Parliament and Government and the UK Parliament and Government. How does the Secretary of State intend to take forward that recommendation and ensure that Members of this House become involved?
	For the past two years, our country has been divided along yes and no lines. Today marks an important moment. There are no longer yeses and noes, just Scots with new powers, and we look forward to working across Scotland to deliver them. Labour will deliver those new powers in our first Queen’s Speech in May. More power is now in Scotland’s hands, and it is for all of us to work together to create that better Scotland.

Alistair Carmichael: I acknowledge that this process has not been easy for any of the parties; it has involved compromise on all sides. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and her colleagues in the Scottish Labour party for the compromises and progress that they have made. They have acted in accordance with the spirit that was expected by the people of Scotland following the referendum vote.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the proposals for the rest of the United Kingdom. As I have said at the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions in recent weeks, that debate is now happening and I welcome it. I share her enthusiasm for a constitutional convention. She will be aware that the Government have set up a Cabinet Committee to look into the wider issues of devolution in other parts of the United Kingdom, and I deeply regret that her party has chosen not to take part in that. I hope that, even at this late stage, Labour Members will change their minds. She and her right hon. and hon. Friends can anticipate receiving an invitation soon to contribute to the Command Paper that the Government will be bringing forward, so if they have proposals, we will be interested to hear them.
	The hon. Lady asked about the implementation of the heads of agreement. As I explained in my statement, a stakeholder group will be set up, and I anticipate there being opportunities for all parties—and, indeed, for groups beyond the political parties—to have a role in that. I will update the House on that as soon as possible.
	One of the most important and prescient observations that Lord Smith made in his personal recommendations was that there should be closer working not only between the two Governments—which has long been accepted to be the case—but between the two Parliaments. Indeed, it was suggested that you, Mr Speaker, might soon consider meeting the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament to build that co-operation between the two Parliaments and the two Governments. Those
	recommendations have a great deal to recommend them. The hon. Lady asked how the recommendations in the report would be implemented, and I can tell her that they will be implemented without hesitation, reservation or equivocation.

Mr Speaker: I meet the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament regularly—a fact of which I suspect colleagues might be aware—and I am very happy to meet her as necessary.

Gerald Howarth: May I say to the Secretary of State that this is no way to introduce massive constitutional change to our country, given the major implications for the rest of the United Kingdom, which has not been consulted at all, not least on the question of how English votes are to be applied to English laws? Does he believe that these proposals will contain or further inflame separatist sentiment in Scotland?

Alistair Carmichael: In Scotland, on 18 September, we decided that we wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom. That was clear and unequivocal, and it is that position that we are now entrenching. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s last question, I believe that these proposals will strengthen the position of Scotland and the United Kingdom for the future. I am sensitive to his concerns about the need for constitutional change in other parts of the United Kingdom and I understand that there is an imbalance within our current constitutional framework. Let me tell him that that was the case before we set up the Scottish Parliament in the first place—it was one of the reasons we set up a Scottish Parliament. The process has been an evolutionary one across the UK and that evolutionary process must now continue. I hope that he and his colleagues, in England in particular, will now take to that debate with enthusiasm and build a consensus that can bring forward the change that is necessary.

Alistair Darling: I, too, welcome the proposals being made by the Smith commission today, transferring, as they do, not just more powers but significant new responsibilities that will be taken on by the Scottish Parliament. As we implement those and discuss, as we must, further devolution to other parts of the United Kingdom, will the Secretary of State ensure that we do nothing that undermines the integrity and the strength of the United Kingdom? In particular, will he ensure that we do not undermine the fiscal union, which is one of the central pillars of that United Kingdom? The majority of people in Scotland voted clearly to stay within the United Kingdom, and I believe the majority of people in the entire United Kingdom want to see it continue. We must be very careful to manage this carefully—other big countries have done it and we can do it, too.

Alistair Carmichael: I do not disagree in any way, shape or form with what the right hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, the sentiment he refers to was reflected in the remit we gave Lord Smith and then in the principles that underpinned his work—the principles agreed by all five parties to the discussion. I believe that what they have brought forward today is entirely consistent with those principles.

George Young: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for the integrity and credibility of the political process in this country that commitments given by political leaders during the referendum campaign are honoured? Does he further agree that the proposals he has just announced further accentuate the imbalance in the British constitution between England and the rest of the United Kingdom? Does he therefore agree that it would be wrong, as some have proposed, to kick the McKay proposals into the long grass? They now need to be addressed with some urgency.

Alistair Carmichael: I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman on the importance of honouring the vow that was made, and that is what we are about today. As I have acknowledged, there is currently an imbalance within the UK constitutional framework. As a federalist, I have long believed that that needs addressing. I do not think anything should be kicked into the long grass. He has been involved in the management of this House in various capacities for many years now, so he will be as aware as I am that once these things are changed it is difficult to change them back if we get them wrong. There is a need for constitutional reform and it goes far beyond the Standing Orders of this House.

Stewart Hosie: I thank the Scottish Secretary for his statement, and Lord Smith and the commissioners for their work. The substantive parts of this are the devolution of less than 30% of Scotland’s tax base and of less than 20% of welfare, and the assignation of a share of VAT. Although that is interesting as far as it goes, I note the absence of other substantive job-creating powers. The Scottish National party will not stand in the way of these powers; it is important to put that on the record, and I do welcome the report as modest progress. However, will the Scottish Secretary confirm that however they are dressed up, these proposals do not reflect the powerhouse Parliament that many in Scotland believed they had been promised before the referendum?

Alistair Carmichael: First, let me try to adopt a more appropriate tone than the hon. Gentleman has perhaps just done and congratulate him on his recent election to the position of deputy leader of his party. It is unfortunate that he did not use the word “welcome”; there are significant job-creating powers in this package and the Scottish Parliament already holds significant job-creating powers. If Nicola Sturgeon is sincere when she says that she wants to govern for the whole of Scotland, she should get on and use the powers that she has, welcome the ones that she is getting and use them for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
	The hon. Gentleman predictably and depressingly seeks to suggest that this is not a fulfilment of the vow. Well, the vow is on the front page of the Daily Record. For the benefit of the House, I have brought that paper with me today. The front page says, “The vow delivers.”Let me draw the House’s attention to the article itself. On page 3, it says that
	“it’s is now clear that they”—
	David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband—
	“have stood behind this agreement to deliver change. Lurid claims to the contrary by some pro-Yes commentators”—
	it must have known what the hon. Gentleman was going to say—
	“have been shown to be false.”
	That is the assessment of one of Scotland’s leading papers. It is more to be relied on than the views of the hon. Gentleman.

Menzies Campbell: My right hon. Friend can now be assured of some favourable remarks in relation to what he has just said about the Daily Record. He will not be surprised that I, rather less grudgingly, welcome both the process behind the proposals and the proposals themselves. Does he understand that I welcome the accusation that these proposals are federal in nature, because it is in federalism that we will find the best constitutional solution to meet the aspirations of all four of our nations and, at the same time, secure the advantages of a secure United Kingdom? Is not the truth now that we should all be federalists?

Alistair Carmichael: Speaking for myself, I always have been a federalist. Indeed, I understand that I can now count on the support of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) in that aspiration. May I also recognise the pivotal role that my right hon. and learned Friend took in the formulation of my own party’s proposals? His commission was the first intervention in this debate, and it very much established the tone and set the bar at a level that others felt it necessary to clear. Ultimately, a federal structure is what this country needs. It works perfectly well—in fact it works much better—in countries around the world. Clearly, it will take time. What we are about here today is delivering in the here and now on the pledge that we made in the referendum.

Ian Davidson: I seek clarification from the Secretary of State as to whether the support of the Smith commission was unanimous. If that is the case, great credit is due to the Greens and to the SNP in particular for being willing to sit down and collaborate with the Liberals, the Conservatives and Labour to find something around which we can all agree. I hope the right hon. Gentleman agrees that if we have had unanimity in producing the report of Smith, we now must have unanimity in implementing it.

Alistair Carmichael: That unanimity is important. I understand that that was the basis on which the agreement was made. Unfortunately, given the tone of some of what we have heard today, John Swinney, who by all accounts performed a significant role in the commission, has not been able to bring everyone in his party with him. That is to be regretted.

John Redwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that once Scotland is determining her own income tax rates and bands in the Scottish Parliament, it would be quite wrong for Scottish Members of this Parliament to be trying to fix those bands and rates for the English?

Alistair Carmichael: I commend to my right hon. Friend the terms of the Smith report, which make it clear that income tax means a tax shared between the two Parliaments.

Graham Allen: I welcome the report. This is a great day for democracy and what is good enough for Scotland is now good enough for England. The Secretary of State will have seen in The Times today a letter from local government leaders from the greatest to the smallest asking for devolution in England. Rather than having to drag it out of Whitehall over 20 years, as Scotland did, through lobbying and referenda-ising, we should get to this quickly. If we do not, through our sloth the Secretary of State might create in England the same nationalism as was evident in Scotland, which I think he would regret. Will he not keep putting this off and talking about constitutional conventions that might never report? We know what we need to do: put it in the manifestos, unite the House and give England local devolution, as Scotland is now getting.

Alistair Carmichael: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, as I suspect that that is the first time that Hansard will have been required to record the word referenda-ising. It is novel and creative. I am not entirely sure whether the growth of nationalism in the different parts of England will be a consequence, but having sat through a six-hour debate just a few weeks ago in this House on the subject of devolution across the whole United Kingdom, I would say the one thing that was clear at the end of the debate was that there is not yet consensus—[Interruption.] It might well need leadership, but leadership alone will not be enough to build consensus. The hon. Gentleman would do well to listen to the words of his own Front Benchers on the question of a constitutional convention. That is not a delaying tactic, as he seems to think. In my view, it is the only feasible way of building consensus to get the change that is wanted.

Andrew Tyrie: The report is a welcome first step towards stabilising the Union, redressing a Scottish grievance, and the Treasury Committee will consider it as part of its inquiry into fiscal devolution. Does the Secretary of State agree that another crucial step must be to redress an English grievance: that Scottish MPs vote on English laws? That must end, notwithstanding the curious wording of paragraph 75 of the agreement. Does he further agree that the English must have a veto on all laws that largely or exclusively affect them, and that the case for that is all the stronger with full devolution of income tax? Nothing less will do.

Alistair Carmichael: It is because we understand the need for change—as I have said already, I and the whole Government are sensitive to that wish for change—that we have set up the process that is being led by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, which is aimed at building consensus to bring about that change.

Ann McKechin: I welcome the comprehensive cross-party consensus to work together for the benefit of the whole of Scotland that the Smith commission has achieved. The Secretary of State will be aware, as I mentioned this to him in Scottish questions yesterday, that there is a growing tax gap, given that there is a higher proportion of basic rate taxpayers and we still do not know how those on the highest incomes, such as Brian Souter, might divert their tax bases so that they do not become liable for Scottish tax rates. Before we produce a White Paper next year, may we
	have a full analysis from the Treasury of the tax base, so we can make sure that any final block settlement accurately reflects the tax raised in Scotland and ensures that we do not end up with Scotland having a worse deal?

Alistair Carmichael: Today’s publication and the agreement we have offer us a range of opportunities in Scotland. In particular, we can do the things for the Scottish economy that will produce the growth that will expand that tax base. The important point is that, having made this decision, we should get on and implement it and then start using the powers, rather than constantly talking about our constitutional position.

Christopher Chope: How does today’s report fit in with the promise made by the Prime Minister on 19 September that any change giving more devolution in Scotland would go in tandem with, and at the same pace as, changes in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Alistair Carmichael: No. I have to contradict my hon. Friend. It has been made perfectly clear all along, and the Prime Minister himself has said, that the change that was promised to Scotland will go ahead according to the timetable that was given to the people of Scotland. It is not contingent on other changes.

Jim Murphy: I welcome today’s statement and I think people across Scotland will welcome it. The referendum changed Scotland, and today’s statement is confirmation that we need to respect the wishes for change of the no voters and reach out to many of those who voted yes as well. In welcoming the tax powers, may I point out that the new welfare powers are just as crucial? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new welfare powers total perhaps as much as £3 billion of new responsibility for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, and that he is minded to enable the devolution of those powers at a pace and in a manner that will enable Scotland to challenge poverty and the generational disadvantage that blights far too many families?

Alistair Carmichael: I can confirm the figure that the right hon. Gentleman has put to the House. What is being offered to the Scottish Parliament is the power to design a welfare system that is fit for purpose in Scotland. That will be one part of tackling the generational issues of poverty and social exclusion to which he refers. The increased powers in job creation and taxation, especially income tax, and the powers to grow the economy in Scotland, can be used to tackle the issues that the right hon. Gentleman is so right to highlight.

Robert Smith: During the referendum campaign, the four party leaders made commitments to the Scottish people. Today we see three party leaders delivering on the vow that they made. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way forward for Scotland is for the SNP to acknowledge their leader’s statement that this would be a once-in-a-generation referendum?

Alistair Carmichael: Indeed; I could not agree more. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made a vow during the
	referendum campaign. Today we honour that vow. The former First Minister and his successor—Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon—also made a vow. They said that they would respect the outcome of the referendum and the decision of the people of Scotland. There is no reason from today for them to do anything other than to make it clear that we will not be returning to this question in a referendum, as they said, in a generation.

Anne Begg: I, too, welcome the announcement today. It has delivered more than the vow—perhaps we could call it the vow plus. There is certainly more in the statement than was expected.
	I welcome the fact that quite a lot of welfare is to be devolved, but it is right that pensions, especially the state pension, should remain reserved, because throughout the campaign and in all the polling, Scottish people, even many yes voters, thought that pensions should remain part of the UK. When can we expect to see the detail of how some of this will work in practice? Not until the detail is available to all Members will we know whether it is practical or not that some of these powers should be devolved.

Alistair Carmichael: I like the hon. Lady’s formulation “the vow plus”. My party leader in Scotland, Willie Rennie, said this morning that this was “the vow max”. I agree with him on that. The hon. Lady is right to highlight that the state pension will remain part of the United Kingdom welfare system. That is one of the most significant parts of the social union that the people of Scotland chose to remain part of on 18 September.
	As for the detail, as Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Lady will doubtless have an important role to play in working it out.

Andrew Robathan: When a healthy majority of our fellow countrymen in Scotland voted to remain in our country, the United Kingdom, it seemed to me that they voted against the petty-minded, mean-spirited and spiteful nationalism that we see from the SNP, yet these proposals seem to be delivering deeper and greater separation between the component parts of the United Kingdom. When Tony Blair introduced his proposal for devolution, which I considered pretty half-baked, he said that it would end the rise of nationalism and cement the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend explain what it is about today’s proposals that will cement the United Kingdom and not lead to yet greater demands for separation of the structure of our country?

Alistair Carmichael: In the course of the referendum campaign all three parties made a vow. It is absolutely essential that we deliver on that vow in the way we are doing today. The UK constitution is a dynamic model—it always has been and it always will be. It is one of the advantages of having an unwritten constitution, as we do. So yes, as I said earlier today, I remain sensitive to the wish of people in England in particular to see a reformed constitution working better for them. It is up to them to decide exactly what that means. We have done it for ourselves in Scotland. They now need to follow suit.

Sandra Osborne: I am pleased that, contrary to reports, it has been decided not to recommend devolving abortion, which
	would have caused all sorts of problems. This is a very exciting day for Scotland, a day we should celebrate. I was going to say that we should put the cynicism and division of the past few years behind us, until I heard the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). Will the Scottish people be informed on an individual household basis of the eventual legislation that comes forward, as happened during the referendum? May I ask the Secretary of State to come to the birthplace of our national bard on 25 January to announce the draft legislation?

Alistair Carmichael: That sounds an enticing prospect. Subject to diary commitments—my own diary gets fairly full around Burns night—I would be more than happy to accommodate the hon. Lady’s request if at all possible. She raised the matter of abortion, the terms of the report in relation to which she will have seen. There is a clear statement that it is considered by the commissioners to be an anomalous reservation, and I can understand why they take that view. However, we have always dealt with abortion differently—we have always made it the subject of a free vote in this House, for example—and the commission reached a sensible compromise by recognising the current anomaly, but saying that a new process will have to be devised to deal with that. I hope that process can involve parliamentarians and civic groups beyond the two Parliaments, which might in some way build a measure of consensus.

Edward Leigh: Unfortunately, there appear to be a number of lacunae, inconsistencies and unanswered questions in the report. If we rush this process, we are in danger of throwing petrol on the embers of English resentment and Scottish separatism. I pose one question out of many: paragraph 95(5)(a) states:
	“The Scottish Government’s borrowing powers should be agreed by the Scottish and UK Governments”.
	Does this mean that their borrowing will be underwritten by the UK Parliament?

Alistair Carmichael: No. Obviously, if the Scottish Government were to borrow, they would have the liability under the borrowing powers. On the hon. Gentleman’s earlier observations about what he perceives as lacunae, the resulting measure, when introduced as legislation in the Queen’s Speech following the election, will still be subject to the full scrutiny of this House and the other place, whoever is standing at the Dispatch Box at the time. I am confident of the abilities of this House and the other place, and that what we will have at the end of the day will work.

Cathy Jamieson: If the Secretary of State manages to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), he would be most welcome to cross the border into Kilmarnock and Loudon—of course, Robert Burns lived in the village of Mauchline and had his works published in Kilmarnock. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the powers that will now be given, in addition to welfare and taxation, include responsibility for the Work programme? That will give the Scottish Parliament a real opportunity to
	add to its existing powers in respect of economic development in order to get people back to work, which is what many of our constituents will be concerned about.

Alistair Carmichael: I would be delighted to join the hon. Lady in her constituency as part of this grand Burns tour that I seem to have signed up to—I just hope that Opposition Members will not start complaining about the cost. She will see that the Work programme is to be devolved, which I think is sensible. Indeed, it was something John Swinney spoke about many times when I shared platforms with him during the referendum campaign. They have the powers; they just have to get on and use them.

Tony Baldry: Should not those of us who believe in lower taxes welcome this proposal’s potential to encourage a healthy competition between London and Edinburgh over which sets the lowest rate of income tax? If Edinburgh sets a significantly higher rate than this Parliament, there will be a movement of talent from Scotland down south. Likewise, if we set a higher rate than Edinburgh, people will start moving to Scotland. That competition should hopefully lead to lower rates of tax.

Alistair Carmichael: That is indeed one of the possible consequences. The truth of the matter is that the Scottish Parliament will, for the first time since it was set up, control both sides of the books for the areas for which it has responsibility; how it spends money and how it raises it. It will then have to be accountable to the voters for how it taxes them. I think that in time, that will have a transformative effect on Scottish politics.

Thomas Docherty: In 2011 the people of Wales had a referendum on greater powers. The Secretary of State might wish to consider the arguments for giving the people of Scotland a referendum on these powers, if for no other reason than to flush out exactly where the SNP stands on the Smith commission.

Alistair Carmichael: That is an interesting idea, but the real purpose of proceeding according to the timetable we have set out is that we will be able to put the proposals to the people next May, which will be the referendum that matters.

Alan Reid: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who is implementing a long-standing Liberal policy and succeeding where Gladstone did not. I am delighted to see that the Crown Estate is to be devolved and that the Smith commission recommends further devolution of its assets to the island authorities. Will he support devolution of the Crown Estate’s assets to other coastal and island communities, such as those in Argyll and Bute?

Mr Speaker: It is a matter of debate whether the Secretary of State is as great a man as Gladstone, but thankfully his statements to the House are notably shorter.

Alistair Carmichael: I do not think there is much debate, Mr Speaker; I do not set myself up for that claim. On the Crown Estate, my hon. Friend is right: that is one of the report’s most significant proposals for our coastal
	and island communities. Indeed, it requires the Scottish Government, when they have devolved control of the Crown Estate, to pass it on to coastal and island communities. We all know what happens when power is devolved to Edinburgh: it tends to stick there. Scotland now has, as a result of seven years of SNP government, one of the most centralised Governments anywhere in Europe. The report mentions Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, as my hon. Friend says, but it begins that recommendation by referring to
	“local authority areas such as”.
	I think that could well include his constituency.

Pete Wishart: I too welcome the Smith commission’s proposals for Scotland. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I will support any process that transfers powers from unelected Tories in Scotland to the Scottish people. Does the Secretary of State even start to recognise the palpable sense of disappointment that exists in Scotland this morning, whether among Scottish people who wanted maximum devolution and expected something close to home rule following the type of talk in the run-up in the referendum, whether among those in the voluntary sector who expected the full transferral of welfare powers, or whether among those in the trade union movement who wanted real job-creating powers and say that they are underwhelmed by the proposals? While we all welcome the proposals, does he at least start to recognise the disappointment at the fact that they could have gone much further?

Alistair Carmichael: I fully accept that the hon. Gentleman wants independence and always has done. That is why we had a vote. It pains me to tell him that he lost, however, and it is about time that he and his party came to terms with that. For him to try to use this process to get independence by the back door does not respect the views of the Scottish people as expressed on 18 September. It is perhaps about time that he thought he has a duty to speak for the 60.19% of his own constituents who rejected independence on 18 September.

Andrew Bridgen: In the fall-out from the recent Scottish referendum—in which only people in Scotland had a vote, but the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland were bound by the result—the Scottish nationalists now object even to the prospect of a UK-wide referendum on our membership of the European Union, claiming that Scotland would be bound by the British consensus. Does my right hon. Friend detect, as I do, more than a whiff of tartan hypocrisy in this stance?

Alistair Carmichael: I suspect, Mr Speaker, that if I used the word “hypocrisy” you would call me back into order, and for that reason I do not use it.

Kevin Brennan: Of course, as hon. Members have pointed out, this agreement affects all parts of the United Kingdom—Wales, England and Northern Ireland as well as Scotland. Will the Secretary of State explain the implications for the Barnett formula of the tax measures in the agreement? In particular, if the Scottish Parliament decided to reduce the level of income tax, what implications would that have for the Barnett formula?

Alistair Carmichael: The Barnett formula remains in operation, but only for the portion of the budget going to the Scottish Parliament that is not accounted for by the taxes that are currently reserved here and are going to be devolved. Detailed technical work is currently under way on this between the Treasury and the Scottish Government. Announcements will be made on its practical application in relation to the 2012 powers in fairly short order.

Iain Stewart: I particularly welcome Lord Smith’s comment in his foreword to the document,
	“that neither the Scottish nor UK Governments will lose or gain financially from the act of transferring a power.”
	Following on from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), does that not underline the fact that if a Scottish Government wanted significantly to increase public spending in Scotland, Scottish taxpayers would foot the bill, and that is good for the accountability of Holyrood?

Alistair Carmichael: I could not agree more. The Scottish Government keep telling us that they want to spend more money; well, now they can, and in order to do so they will have to raise taxes or cut money elsewhere. That is how politics works.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: It sounds as though it is thanks to Labour that the Smith commission is proposing such an excellent deal for Scotland. Is the Secretary of State having discussions with his ministerial colleagues about devolving power to English regions via their local authorities?

Alistair Carmichael: I caution the hon. Lady about seeking to claim too much credit on behalf of her party, or any other. As I said, this required us all to participate in good faith, and we all had to make compromises. No individual party should seek to claim too much credit; it was a joint effort. She knows that I am sympathetic to devolution to parts of England, but a concrete proposal has to be worked out. We did that over many years in Scotland, and I am afraid there is no quick or easy way for her and her communities now to do it for themselves.

Alec Shelbrooke: The Scottish referendum showed without doubt that a large number of people who voted for the SNP may not necessarily have wanted independence. May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that, when the SNP wipes out the Labour party next May, it is seen as a rejection of the Labour party rather than a reflection of the need for further devolution or separation?

Alistair Carmichael: I think we should all be cautious of trying to predict the outcome of next May’s election.

Ian Murray: May I commend the work of all the commissioners on the Smith commission, particularly—not to single anyone out—my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont)? There is a perception that politicians do not keep their promises, but the truth is that the solemn promise we made to the Scottish people during the referendum campaign has today been not only delivered, but delivered with bells on. May I encourage
	the Secretary of State to look seriously at double devolution, to make sure that today’s announcements and the commission report create not just a powerhouse Scottish Parliament, but powerhouse local authorities and, more importantly, powerhouse local communities?

Alistair Carmichael: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman will see some support for his latter proposition in the report’s foreword, under the heading, “Devolution from the Scottish Parliament”. Lord Smith articulates, in a very measured way, the galloping centralisation we have seen in recent years in the Scottish Government. I appreciate the way in which the hon. Gentleman did not single out the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. In the same tone, I should not single out my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore), who, along with my constituency colleague, Tavish Scott, played a tremendous role in getting this deal.

Philip Davies: In the Scottish referendum, if people voted yes they were voting for full independence, but it now seems that if people voted no they were voting for more independence. Will the Secretary of State explain how those people who wanted the status quo should have voted in the September referendum? Will he personally accept that, as more power is given to the Scottish Parliament, it is unacceptable and unjustifiable for Members of Parliament from Scotland to continue to vote on issues that affect only England?

Alistair Carmichael: As the Prime Minister himself said this morning, he always said that a vote for no was never going to be a vote for no change. Indeed, when the people of Scotland went to the polling stations, all parties had put out their detailed proposals on what would follow in the event of a no vote. As I have said on a number of occasions today, on the question of constitutional change in England, a process is now under way, led by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

John Robertson: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) on their hard work? I also congratulate the six SNP Members in particular—it must have been very difficult for them to compromise on an area on which they do not usually compromise in any shape or form. [Interruption.] Does the Secretary of State agree that now is the time for the Scottish people—the families and friends who were split and the people who did not talk to each other because of grievances caused by the referendum—to get back together and put Scotland first?

Alistair Carmichael: I apologise for missing the early part of the hon. Gentleman’s question because of the constant sotto voce commentary from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).

Pete Wishart: I was shouted down!

Alistair Carmichael: Did I say it was sotto voce? It seems to have ratcheted up a little. The hon. Gentleman had his chance when he was called by you, Mr Speaker.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) is absolutely right. This is a time to heal the divisions and bring the people of Scotland together. We had a vote, prior to which we said we would deliver change and today we have told the people of Scotland what that change will be. It is time to get together and use the powers that the Scottish Parliament has and will get, and to use them for the good of the Scottish people and the Scottish economy.

Julian Smith: It is already a tough market for north of England and Yorkshire airports. Does the Secretary of State agree that, if Scotland is going to get flexibility on air passenger duty, north of England and Yorkshire airports have to get it, too?

Alistair Carmichael: The question is how the Scottish Government choose to use any flexibility they have. If they choose to cut air passenger duty, they will obviously have to cut some public service provision or raise some other tax. The hon. Gentleman should not assume that flexibility only goes one way.

Geraint Davies: In Wales, we are required to have a referendum before we have income tax devolution of a much more modest nature. The devolution of income tax in Scotland will have profound implications for migration. In particular, if the Scots lower the top rate of tax, richer people will naturally move to Scotland. If unemployment goes up in Scotland, they will raise tax at the lower rate and reduce public services, because they do not have compensatory borrowing powers. Given that, should there not be a referendum of not just the 8% of people who live in Scotland, but of the rest of the UK? We should not be driven by the 4% of people who voted for independence; the profound implications for migration, taxation and all the rest of it should be decided by the whole of the United Kingdom.

Alistair Carmichael: That is not how we have done these things in the years since the late 1970s, when such decisions were first mooted. The hon. Gentleman has outlined all sorts of scenarios, many of which are possible, and some of which we may even see. That is what we mean when we say that the United Kingdom changed for ever on 18 September. The duty is on all of us in the political parties and the body politic to come up to the mark and to meet that change. As far as referendums are concerned, I am afraid that I have had enough to be going on with.

Mark Hunter: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his considerable achievement in helping to secure this historic agreement? I also pay tribute to his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore). I invite the Secretary of State to agree with me that, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said earlier, what is good enough for the Scots is good enough for the English, too. Does the Secretary of State support a similar constitutional arrangement for England?

Alistair Carmichael: I thank my hon. Friend for referring to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore).
	My hon. Friend is right to say that constitutional change has to come to other parts of the United Kingdom. However, it is not for me to tell the people of England how they want to govern themselves. They have to have that conversation and make the decision for themselves.

Ian Lucas: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the amount of revenue raised by income tax in Scotland will not affect the amount paid to Scotland under the Barnett formula?

Alistair Carmichael: No, the amount taken from income tax will now be divorced from the Barnett formula. The Barnett formula will operate for that part of the public expenditure grant to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament that remains after that process.

Andrew Turner: If legislation on elections is a Scottish matter, does that mean that Scotland decides who gets a vote in Scotland, or is that only so for the Scottish Parliament, while Westminster decides who gets a Westminster vote?

Alistair Carmichael: That is in fact the case. That matter is dealt with in some detail by Lord Smith in his report. The responsibility in relation to elections to local authorities and to the Scottish Parliament will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. However, this House will retain control over elections to it.

Sheila Gilmore: I do not envy the Secretary of State his task of going in January to all of the parts of Scotland where Robert Burns dallied and romanced. The important point, however, is that a lot of people in Scotland want to be involved in this debate and discussion. They want to be fully informed about what is happening, not just to be told what they think or to be told that there is some form of betrayal. What arrangements will the Secretary of State make to ensure that people are fully involved in these debates?

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Lady is right to highlight that one of the great successes of the whole referendum experience was that we got the widest possible range of engagement across Scottish society. We have to make sure that that does not now just wither away; we have to do what we can to harness and nurture it. I recently met representatives of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Church of Scotland and the National Union of Students to discuss exactly that process. Not everything of this sort has to be done by Government and through the party political process. The most effective civic engagement is that which grows out of civic groups themselves.

Philip Hollobone: Scotland receives from English taxpayers an additional annual public subsidy, over and above what any English region receives, not because there is an extra level of deprivation, but simply because Scotland is Scotland. What proportion of the funds that are given to Scotland under the Barnett formula will be affected by the ceding of tax-raising powers to the Scottish Parliament?

Alistair Carmichael: It was of common accord between the parties that the Barnett formula would remain. As I have made clear to the House, the amount of money
	that goes to Scotland under the Barnett formula will be reduced, because what is taken in taxation directly by the Scottish Parliament will be taken out of the equation. It is an important truth that, although the Barnett formula produces some anomalies, no party has ever been able to produce a better option.

Chi Onwurah: Communities across Britain want power to be held and wielded closer to them. I therefore welcome Scotland’s increased self-determination. However, we in the north-east also want more powers to be devolved to us. The Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) that there were no easy answers, but will he at least confirm that he is looking for solutions? Specifically, how will he enable us to ensure that Newcastle international airport can compete with Scottish airports in respect of air passenger duty?

Alistair Carmichael: The Government have already embarked on that process through the programme of city deals and growth deals over the past four and a half years. I do believe that there needs to be greater devolution to all corners of the United Kingdom. My family stretches to the south-west of England, where my in-laws come from. They understand that the needs of people in the south-west of England are as badly served by the conventional centralised model of government from Whitehall as the needs of the rest of my family in Scotland ever were. It is now for the hon. Lady and her communities to come forward with a coherent plan for exactly what that change should be.

Robin Walker: Further to that answer, in which the Secretary of State talked about devolution to all parts of the United Kingdom, does he not accept that when addressing issues such as English votes for English laws, which many of us feel passionately and strongly about, and the balance between local and central Government, it should be this sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom that takes the final decisions, not some remote constitutional convention, as is suggested by those on the Opposition Front Bench?

Alistair Carmichael: Perhaps I should explain how constitutional conventions work. A constitutional convention brings together the political parties and the voices of business, the trade unions, civic groups, the Churches and all the rest of it. They build the consensus, as they did in Scotland, but it was this House that passed the Scotland Acts in 1998 and 2012. There is no question of our subcontracting legislative responsibility.

Mike Gapes: The commission and the parties recognised that foreign affairs would remain a reserved matter. The report refers to vital “national infrastructure” in respect of the security and defence of the United Kingdom. Will the Secretary of State confirm that all parties involved in the Smith commission, including the SNP and the Greens, signed up to that? Will he therefore have discussions with the Scottish Government to make it clear that it is this House and this United Kingdom that are responsible for the foreign and defence policy of our country?

Alistair Carmichael: I confirm that it was an agreement of all the parties. I hope that all parties will demonstrate good faith and honour that agreement. Obviously, I cannot account for everyone.

Andrew Percy: Apparently, home rule for Scotland and the creation of a powerful Scottish Parliament can be decided on in the blink of an eye, but the issue of English votes for English laws needs to be kicked into the long grass, with a constitutional convention. Is it not the truth that, unless these proposals go along with English votes for English laws, my constituents in Brigg and Goole and the people of England will continue to get the fluffy end of the lollipop?

Alistair Carmichael: Well, there’s no accounting for taste I suppose.
	In the blink of an eye? I have been a political activist for 34 years, and this issue has dominated Scottish political discourse during that time, and I suspect for some time before that. A substantial amount of work was done on today’s proposals by the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and Labour before the referendum, so it is not a rushed or ill-considered piece of work but has considerable background. On English votes for English laws, the hon. Gentleman should be careful about devolving power within Parliament without tackling the same question within the Executive, as that would risk creating another instability.

Jonathan Edwards: The signature policy of the Smith commission concerns the full devolution of income tax receipts. The Wales Bill, which completed its passage through the House of Lords on Monday, devolves only a small partial element of income tax receipts, and only following another referendum many years down the line. When will Westminster stop treating Wales like a second-class nation?

Alistair Carmichael: I thought the only grievance we would get today would be from the Scottish nationalists; I had forgotten we had Plaid Cymru here as well. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the positive approach taken by all parties in building a consensus in Wales. We have always known that for different historical reasons, devolution across the different nations in this country emerges at different paces, which is absolutely right. If he wants more progress, he should try to learn from the Scottish nationalists—or at least from what they were doing before today—and work with other parties to build that consensus.

John Denham: Scotland will get what Scotland wants, but when will England get what it wants? Does the Secretary of State agree that we need much more radical change in Westminster than has currently been contemplated, more radical devolution within England than has currently been delivered or offered, and a much more open, inclusive and democratic process than that being led by the Leader of the House?

Alistair Carmichael: I am confident that England will get what England wants when England decides exactly what it is she wants.

Business of the House

William Hague: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
	Monday 1 December—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.
	Tuesday 2 December—Second Reading of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill.
	Wednesday 3 December—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer will deliver his autumn statement, followed by remaining stages of the Taxation of Pensions Bill.
	Thursday 4 December—Motion to approve a statutory instrument, followed by debate on a motion relating to Financial Conduct Authority redress scheme, and a general debate on availability and pricing of branded medicines on the NHS. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 5 December—Private Members’ Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 8 December will include:
	Monday 8 December—Second Reading of the Infrastructure Bill [Lords].
	For the convenience of the House, I advise colleagues that the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill will be considered in a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday 9 December, Monday 15 December and Tuesday 16 December.
	I also inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 11 and 15 December will be:
	Thursday 11 December—Debate on reports from the International Development Committee on strengthening health systems in developing countries and on recovery and development in Sierra Leone and Liberia, followed by a debate on the 11th report from the International Development Committee on disability and development.
	Monday 15 December—General debate on an e-petition relating to Millie’s Trust campaign to train all nurses in paediatric first aid.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business, albeit with last-minute changes. I note the sudden appearance next Thursday of unidentified Government business. Will he tell us what it is, or is he playing partisan games? In the light of the publication of the Smith commission report this morning and the assurance that there will be a draft Bill by the end of January, will he set out in more detail what arrangements the Government will make to enable proper consideration and debate on that report, both inside and outside the House?
	Yesterday the Home Secretary published the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, and we will debate its Second Reading next Tuesday. The Bill contains welcome measures to restore relocation powers and give more support to the Prevent programme. Will the Leader of the House ensure that he gives the Bill appropriate time to be properly scrutinised, especially because yesterday the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation said that one of the measures was:
	“An announcement waiting for a policy.”
	Do the Government need time to explain why they got it so wrong on control orders and put public safety at risk?
	Next week we have the autumn statement, which is yet again in December—I am beginning to wonder whether the Chancellor knows something about climate change that he is not letting on. In 2010 he promised two things: that he would balance the books by 2015, and that he would not do that on the backs of the poor. Four years later he has clearly broken both promises. His five-year plan to eliminate the deficit is now running four years late; wages have fallen year on year while food bank use soars. On this Government’s watch the majority of people in poverty in this country are in work, but all the Government can deliver is a £3 billion tax cut every year for the top 1% of earners. While the Chancellor makes complacent boasts about the slowest recovery for more than 100 years, is the truth that only Labour can end this low-wage economy and deliver a recovery for the many not the few?
	One thing this Government do well is miss their own targets. We have had the Chancellor’s abject failure on the deficit. The Home Secretary has finally admitted that the Government have no hope of meeting their target to reduce net migration—we all remember “no ifs, no buts”—and today’s net migration figures show the scale of her failure. The Government’s flagship universal credit programme is being delayed again. It was meant to be in place by 2017, but yesterday’s report from the National Audit Office states that it will not be ready until 2020. One million people were meant to be on universal credit by this April, but there were fewer than 10,000. It was supposed to save money, but the Government wasted millions of pounds on a failed IT system and staff costs are set to soar by a massive £2.8 billion. The Secretary of State talks fondly of “landing” the universal credit programme safely, but is it clear from that damning report that it has not yet even taken off?
	This Government have managed to be cruel and inefficient at the same time. They have overspent by £25 billion on social security because they have not tackled low-paid and insecure work. They have spent £5 billion more than they planned on tax credits and £6 billion more on housing benefit. People are suffering because of the bedroom tax, and nearly a million of the most vulnerable people in our country have been left waiting for their disability assessment. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time so that we can start to sort out the rhetoric from the reality on social security?
	This week yet again we have watched as the Conservative party’s civil war on Europe widens. After the Chancellor’s humiliating climb down on EU bankers bonuses, and while the Prime Minister keeps us all waiting for yet another speech to end all speeches on Europe, it is no wonder that Conservative MPs are taking matters into their own hands. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said:
	“I agree with UKIP and Nigel Farage on virtually everything”.
	The former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made a bid to put himself at the head of the “out” campaign, and six senior Ministers look set to join him. No wonder the Home Secretary has let it be known that she no longer rates the Prime Minister and has “given up” on him.
	Appearing on “Desert Island Discs” this week, the Home Secretary revealed that her favourite song is Abba’s “Dancing Queen”, but what she really meant was “Take a chance on me”. She revealed her favourite book to be “Pride and Prejudice.” Well, Mr Speaker, “It is a truth universally acknowledged” that the Conservative party just cannot stop banging on about Europe. I can only imagine what it would be like to be stuck on a desert island cut off, alone, isolated from friends, with no one to talk to and no hope of rescue. It must be a bit like being a Liberal Democrat.

William Hague: I think the hon. Lady is being a little audacious in talking about “Desert Island Discs” when the Labour party cannot even sing “Stand By Your Man” very well. When she talked about somebody being cut off from all his friends, I thought she must have been referring to the Leader of the Opposition.
	The hon. Lady asked about last minute changes to business. Unusually, I have announced business three weeks ahead to 15 December. It is for the convenience of the House to have business announced as far ahead as possible, so I think that that is a good last minute change to make. She also asked about a particular item of business on Thursday next week. I can assure her that it will be very clear by next Thursday.
	We have just had a statement on the Smith commission report. It is very important for the House to debate these matters further and to debate the consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom, a point made by many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. As the Chair of the Cabinet Committee for Devolved Powers, I intend to ensure that the Government publish the options for England in a Command Paper before Christmas, following up the work of the Smith commission. I am sure the House will want to consider that, and I will make a statement at the time.
	The hon. Lady asked about appropriate time to be given for the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. I have announced three days in Committee on the Floor of the House. There will be a clear gap between the Committee stage and Report. The Opposition wanted the Report stage to be after the Christmas recess and it will be. That will give the House time to reflect on all parts of the Bill, so I hope we have accommodated Opposition concerns on that. We have had productive discussions on this issue. The Bill is very important for our national security, but of course it needs to be properly scrutinised and considered in detail.
	The hon. Lady asked about the autumn statement and poked fun at its being on 3 December. I have to remind her that autumn lasts until the winter solstice, which is normally on 21 December, or on 22 or 23 December in certain years. I can therefore assure the hon. Lady that 3 December is very much within autumn.
	The hon. Lady asked about universal credit. The previous Government were left with a welfare system in which for every extra £10 some people earned, they lost £9 in additional taxes. Universal credit is being designed to ensure that it pays to work and it is likely to deliver benefits to millions of people. Yes, it is always possible to criticise the implementation of IT projects, but it was estimated that the previous Government wasted £26 billion on IT projects that did not succeed. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the
	Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), made a statement to the House, so Members have had the opportunity to discuss that.
	The hon. Lady asked about relative incomes. Relative poverty in the last year for which we have figures, 2012-13, was at its lowest since the 1980s. We have 600,000 fewer people in relative poverty than there were at the general election. The answer to poverty is to get people into work, and that is what the Government are achieving. She asked about a recovery for the many or the few. The previous Government left office with no recovery for anyone at all—neither many nor few. That is what the Opposition’s policies would bring about again.
	The hon. Lady talked about comments within the Conservative party on various issues in the past week. It has not been a great week in the Labour party. She has made an exception of asking about the whereabouts of the Chief Whip this week. As I explained last week, he spent much time in Rochester. Really, the Opposition Chief Whip should have been there to tell members of the shadow Cabinet not to photograph people’s houses. She would have been well deployed—[Interruption.] Oh, she was there! Well, she obviously did not get to all the members of the shadow Cabinet.
	After the stealth reshuffle that I think took place in September on the Opposition Front Bench, and the anti-climax reshuffle in October, we have now had the Rochester reshuffle in November. But we are pleased that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) is still in place and we are absolutely delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is in place all the way to the general election.

Greg Knight: May we have a debate on wildlife crime? Is the Leader of the House aware that the trade in endangered species is being facilitated by some courier firms, which transport animal parts and derivative products without inquiring what it is they are delivering? Should we not impose a greater duty on couriers, and should we not be doing more to stamp out this vile crime?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. There is a good case for a debate on this matter and I hope he will take it to the Backbench Business Committee. As chair of the ministerial committee on animal health and animal issues, I too feel extremely strongly on this issue. I believe there is more that Governments across the world can do, and I will be doing some work on that in the next few months.

John Denham: Can I take it from the Leader of the House’s words that whatever the statutory instrument is on, it will not be on English votes for English laws? When he brings forward the White Paper, will it include proposals to take the options he identifies out to the country at large for discussion, debate and amendment, before anything is brought back to this House?

William Hague: There is no primary legislation that would permit the statutory instrument to be about English votes on English laws; the right hon. Gentleman can be
	assured of that. One of the reasons why it is important to bring forward a Government paper on the options on decentralisation and on the question that we have come to call “English votes on English laws” is so that there can be a full debate in the country and discussions between parties. Indeed, I regret that those on the Opposition Front Bench have chosen not to take part in cross-party discussions. I will be writing to them today to invite them to contribute ideas to the Command Paper, so there is a chance for them to reconsider their position. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can encourage them to do so.

Peter Bone: This weekend, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), Tom Pursglove, our excellent candidate in Corby, and I will be delivering our north Northampton EU referendum. We will be stopped by people saying that the most important issue is immigration and the number of people coming here from the EU. Can we have an emergency statement next week from the Prime Minister on stopping EU migration until the position is resolved?

William Hague: My hon. Friend will know that the Prime Minister will be making a speech on these issues, particularly in relation to the European Union. The immigration figures today show that, while there has been a large reduction in non-EU immigration—in fact, that is at its lowest level since the 1990s—there has been an increase in EU immigration to the United Kingdom. That is an important issue, as I am sure he will find when he is canvassing with our excellent candidate in Corby this weekend. The Prime Minister will address this issue in his forthcoming speech.

Ian Paisley Jnr: When the shadow Leader of the House was referring to obscure Abba hits, I thought she might have mentioned a song on Abba’s 1973 “Ring Ring” album, “He Is Your Brother”.
	I turn to the much more serious matter of serious and organised crime and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. The Leader of the House will be aware that two prominent members of Sinn Fein, including an elected representative, were last night arrested in Northern Ireland for serious and organised crimes, including an historic murder case. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to include such matters in the Second Reading debate next week, so that we can get to the bottom of some of the most serious and obnoxious crimes currently taking place in Northern Ireland?

William Hague: It is up to hon. Members what they wish to raise in the debate—subject to the scope of the Bill, of course. The Home Secretary will set out on Second Reading the scope of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill and its provisions, so I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have opportunities to ask her about those matters when we begin the debate on the Bill.

Mark Hunter: We heard earlier the statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland about the historic agreement on greater devolution of power to the Scots, and the Leader of the House said just now that the Government would publish their Command Paper on options for England before Christmas. Will he commit to an urgent debate in the House once it
	has been published, and does he personally agree that what is good enough for the Scots is good enough for the English?

William Hague: I will seek to make a statement on behalf of the Government when we publish the Command Paper, and it will then be important to hold debates on these things. Opposition Members have just been calling for public discussion, so I am sure we will want to hold such debates. What has been agreed for Scotland will undoubtedly have consequences for England, and that is something on which all of us, including my hon. Friend, will want to put our views.

Paul Flynn: When can we debate early-day motion 501, which forecasts that the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill will become a landmark in legislative futility?
	[That this House believes that a coalition bill will become a major landmark in legislative futility; further believes that the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill described by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, a former Conservative Attorney General, as utter tosh is designed to create volunteers and heroes by legislation; salutes the intention of Lord Lloyd to move against all three clauses of the bill so that only the title will remain; is alarmed that responsible bodies warn that the bill could do harm, including the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers who say the bill will put vulnerable people at risk and the leading law firm Slater and Gordon who described the bill as pointless and potentially dangerous; calls on the Government to avoid the derision from judges that a former Conservative Solicitor General said will be provoked and drop this lamentable headline-seeking example of crude populism.]
	It was described by a former Attorney-General as “utter tosh”, and a former Solicitor-General has said it will cause cynicism among judges. Will the Leader of the House’s party help the reputation of this Parliament by supporting the intention of Lord Lloyd to move against all three elements of the Bill so that all that is left is the title?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman will not be astonished to hear that I will not be supporting that intention. We have had extensive debates in this House, through which the Bill was passed, and it would be an exercise in legislative futility to hold those debates again.

George Young: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter), the Leader of the House confirmed that there would be not just a statement and a Command Paper, but a debate on English votes for English laws. May I press him to go to the next stage and promise that at the end of the debate there will be a vote?

William Hague: I am very much in favour of testing the opinion of the House. Of course, that would require agreement within the Government about the motion we bring forward and with the Opposition about the framework for such a debate. Like my right hon. Friend, however, I am personally very much in favour of fully testing the opinion of the House, including by having a vote.

Joan Walley: I am sure the whole House will want to congratulate Steelite International on its recent “Made in Britain” award
	from the Growing Business Awards. Given the importance of the product safety regulations, which I understand will be discussed on 4 December, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Business Secretary to make a statement about whether the Government will support origin marking, so that when someone turns over a piece of ceramic, they can see exactly what they are getting and where it was made?

William Hague: I join the hon. Lady in congratulating the business concerned, and I will draw the Business Secretary’s attention to the representation she has made. This country has a good record of supporting regulations within the EU that increase consumer awareness and knowledge of what people are buying, and I know that he will want to keep the House informed. I shall pass on the hon. Lady’s representations to him.

Christopher Pincher: May we have a debate on planning rules, particularly the rights of local residents living on the borders of local authorities? For example, there is a go-carting track in north Warwickshire that has a significant impact on my constituents over the road in Tamworth, yet those residents have no say in the election of North Warwickshire councillors, who of course make the planning decisions. I know there are rules about consultation and feedback, but a debate would allow us to discuss how we can address that continuing question of accountability.

William Hague: I agree that accountability on these things is important. As always, on these and other matters, my hon. Friend speaks up well for the interests of his constituents. It is open to him to pursue a debate—either an Adjournment debate or a Backbench Business debate—on these issues.

Barry Gardiner: The Royal Society’s report on resilience to extreme weather has just been published. As the Leader of the House will know, it has highlighted that by 2030, 800,000 properties—more than 300,000 more than currently—will be subject to extreme flood risk as a result of climate change, even with the additional spending the Government are trying to make available up to 2020. May we have a debate on this important matter and report?

William Hague: I agree that it is an important report. The hon. Gentleman referred to increased spending. We have announced a record capital settlement of £2.3 billion over the next six years to tackle flooding, and we are spending £171 million on maintenance alone. However, as he said, such reports forecast that the problem will intensify over the coming decades, so there is a good case for considering these matters in the House. I cannot promise that the Government will provide such a debate immediately, given all the other pressures, but the hon. Gentleman could pursue the matter with the Backbench Business Committee and with Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs during Question Time.

Julian Lewis: In the week that saw the publication of the report on the Woolwich atrocity, attention has inevitably focused on the killers and the social media companies that think it was nothing to do with them. May we have a statement from an
	appropriate Minister, therefore, on the failure so far to recognise the bravery of three people who did not pass by on the other side? Amanda Donnelly, Gemini Donnelly-Martin and Ingrid Loyau-Kennett sought to help Fusilier Rigby and confronted the killers. One of them has since suffered major mental health problems. Why has neither a Queen’s commendation nor a George medal been awarded to these three brave women, who clearly deserve them?

William Hague: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As he knows, the Prime Minister made a statement on the report by the Intelligence and Security Committee on Tuesday, but he is right to mention the bravery and outstanding behaviour of these individuals and to draw their names to the attention of the House. I will ensure that the Prime Minister is made aware of his remarks.

Clive Efford: I would like to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), which, as a Member of Parliament for a constituency in the borough of Greenwich, I very much appreciate.
	The privatisation of the NHS met its Waterloo last Friday in a vote on my private Member’s Bill, which seeks to take the market, and the regulatory authorities that introduced it into the NHS, out of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The will of the House was heard when it voted overwhelmingly in favour of my Bill— 241 to 18—so may I urge the Leader of the House to bring forward a resolution as soon as possible to ensure that it goes into Committee?

William Hague: While not agreeing with the Bill, I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s work in promoting it and the debate that took place last week. He must know, however, that his Bill is some way down the list of private Members’ Bills, although it received its Second Reading last week, and that there are other private Members’ Bills going into Committee. His Bill will have to go into Committee following the normal procedures and at the normal time, in the light of the order of sequence of private Members’ Bills.

Bob Russell: On Christmas eve, printing company Polestar will be axing 75 jobs in my constituency and shutting all three of its sites in Colchester. May we therefore have a debate on spare capacity in the printing industry—a situation not helped when British companies such as BT print all their directories overseas?

William Hague: I think that a whole debate in the House on spare capacity in the printing industry would be a little narrow, but of course the hon. Gentleman could pursue these issues in an Adjournment debate or elsewhere. He has just demonstrated that he is pursuing the matter in the House and standing up for his constituents, and I am sure he will find further opportunities to do so.

Mike Gapes: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 39 about the Vienna conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.
	[That this House notes the recent governmental conferences on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons, attended by 127 states in Norway in March 2013 and by 145 states in Mexico in February 2014; welcomes the announcement of a new follow-up conference in Austria in December 2014; further notes the call for UK attendance; and urges the Government to ensure that it is represented at this event in Vienna. ]
	The United States has recently announced that it will join the 150 countries attending that conference. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether it is the intention of the UK Government to send a representative to Vienna on 8 December?

William Hague: As the hon. Gentleman will know very well, it is Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next Tuesday on 2 December. I spoke for a long time for the Foreign Office, but rather than trying to do so now, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to FCO questions. In previous years we have been reluctant to attend, given various difficulties to do with that particular conference, but I am sure Foreign Office Ministers will be able to answer his question clearly next week.

Edward Leigh: May I press my right hon. Friend a little more on the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young)? In common with many people, my main priority is the Union and friendship between our two nations. This depends on the absence of resentment on either side. What some of us are worried about is that as we approach the end of this Parliament, it will suddenly be announced that we cannot have a vote because the Deputy Prime Minister has thrown his toys out of the pram, or something like that, and there is no agreement in the quad, and the whole thing will just fade into the long grass. We want an absolute cast-iron, specific assurance from the Conservative side of the Government that we will have this vote.

William Hague: My hon. Friend need be in no doubt that the Prime Minister and I, and Conservatives in the coalition—and, indeed, across the country—will be very committed to having a vote in this House. The only caveat is this: my hon. Friend will be aware that, since we do not have an overall majority, we are not in total control of Government business or of the business of this House. We have, of course, seen some of our hon. Friends from the Liberal Democrats, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter), looking for these matters to be considered in detail. Let us make sure that we are able to do that.

Kevin Brennan: If the right hon. Gentleman knows what the business is next Thursday, why cannot we? The Government favour transparency, so they say, but making the business invisible simply turns that into a game of charades. If he is not prepared to tell us what the business is next Thursday, perhaps he could get up at the Dispatch Box and mime it, so that we might at least have a clue what it is that we will be debating next week.

William Hague: I do not think miming would be very easy for Hansard to record, so that is not the solution! A small part of next Thursday’s business is not invisible; it
	is more that its full contents are not yet clear. It will become entirely apparent why that is the case in due course.

Alan Reid: The new DVLA contract with Specsavers for drivers’ eye tests has meant that constituents in Campbeltown or Islay have to travel 90 miles by road or take a four-hour ferry journey to get their eye tests, which is completely unacceptable. May we have an urgent statement from the Department for Transport to allow my constituents to have an eye test locally, because they certainly do not want to go to Specsavers?

William Hague: I am advised that Specsavers is currently negotiating contracts with a number of independent opticians to ensure that there is appropriate coverage. I am advised, too, that where it is unable to negotiate a contract locally, the DVLA does not expect individuals to travel excessive distances. Where it is satisfied that a contracted optician or optometrist is not available, the DVLA will approach an independent provider to conduct the vision tests on an ad hoc basis. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents may be able to make use of that.

Andrew Bridgen: My constituent Dawn Astle is campaigning for justice for her late father, the former West Bromwich Albion and England footballer, Jeff Astle, who sadly died in 2002 after suffering neurological damage as a result of heading old-style leather footballs. When I recently visited Coalville rugby club, I found it had numerous leaflets advising about the risks and dangers of head injuries, yet in the words of Dr Robert Cantu, a leading neurologist, football is “light years behind” rugby union in appreciating this problem. May we have a debate on what more the football governing bodies can do to address this long-running issue?

William Hague: My hon. Friend rightly raises an important issue on behalf of the family of Jeff Astle as well as those currently playing the sport. His question is all the more poignant given that we heard this morning the very sad news of the tragic death of the Australian cricketer, Phillip Hughes. I believe that the Football Association published new guidelines in August relating to the problem of head injuries. The FA says, however, that it is aware that the rules around treating head injuries cover only players in the present and the future and cannot cover past injuries. I am sure that a debate would give Members an opportunity to discuss what more could be done—in other sports as well as football. I am sure that this would be a good argument to present to the Backbench Business Committee.

Rehman Chishti: The Secretary of State for Health recently visited Medway Maritime hospital in my constituency, and I would like to thank him for all the support he has given to the hospital to turn it around as soon as possible. May we have an urgent statement from the Health Secretary on hospitals in special measures to highlight the work the Government are doing to improve these hospitals, taking into account the fact that six of them have already been taken out of special measures?

William Hague: The Secretary of State regularly answers questions about and comments on hospitals in special measures. My hon. Friend will know that the Medway is receiving an additional £5.5 million of support to increase its resilience in the coming winter period. Eighteen trusts have gone into special measures, since that regime was established, with six of them now turned around, as my hon. Friend said, and no longer in special measures, while major progress has been made at nearly all the others. I am sure we all believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken the right and necessary action with regard to these hospitals.

Philip Hollobone: If the Liberal Democrats prevented the Government from introducing a motion on English votes for English laws, and if in that event some of us tabled a suitable motion through the Backbench Business Committee, would the Leader of the House encourage Conservative Members to support it?

William Hague: Yes. If for any reason there were no vote on these matters stemming from a Government initiative, there would be very strong pressure on the Backbench Business Committee. I shall keep hon. Members suitably informed. How all of us vote on a particular motion will, of course, depend on its content. I shall keep my hon. Friend and others informed.

Andrew Jones: We heard a very positive announcement on the east coast main line from the Transport Secretary this morning, building on the huge investment in rail infrastructure in the north, both of which significantly benefit my Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency. May we have a debate about how the Government are transforming the rail network in the north of England?

William Hague: There is good case for that. This morning’s announcements will be of great benefit to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and indeed to mine. We saw an extraordinary display from Labour earlier. Despite an announcement bringing the prospect of a better return for the taxpayer, an improved service, more seats and more trains going to more stations across the north of England, Labour Members were against it because they take the trade union line and are still wedded to ideas of nationalisation, so I think a debate on this subject would be very welcome.

Jason McCartney: Speaking as chairman of the all-party group for fair fuel for motorists and hauliers, we very much welcome the Government’s freezing of fuel duty. However, despite a 30% reduction in the price of crude oil since June, pump prices in the UK have fallen by only 6%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a full Competition and Markets Authority inquiry into the pricing of petrol and diesel is now long overdue, and may we have a statement?

William Hague: It is important for these price reductions to be passed on. The Office of Fair Trading has investigated these concerns. In January 2013, it published its analysis, and Government analysis suggests that crude price changes are passed on to pump prices within about six or seven weeks. National average pump prices are now at their lowest levels since December 2010, but it is, of
	course, quite right to keep up the pressure to ensure such reductions are passed on. My hon. Friend will also be aware that, thanks to the policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pump prices are nearly 20p a litre lower than they would have been under the last Government’s fuel duty plans.

Mark Pawsey: May we have a debate on the role of smaller hospitals within the NHS, which was the subject of a recent Monitor report? My constituents in Rugby have consistently made it clear that, wherever possible, they prefer health services to be provided locally at the Hospital of St. Cross. The report states that
	“small district general hospitals can thrive”,
	which means patients being treated closer to home in Rugby.

William Hague: This issue is very important to many parts of the country. The Government agree with Monitor’s findings that smaller hospitals must have a future. I believe that the local trust has given an assurance that it has no plans or intention to close the Hospital of St Cross, and that should there be any future plans for service changes—in Rugby or anywhere else in the country—it would be necessary to demonstrate that they had the support of local doctors and patients, and public engagement would be required. However, I know that my hon. Friend rightly places great value on that hospital, and will always defend it very strongly.

Afghanistan

Michael Fallon: With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on Afghanistan.
	Let me begin by offering my condolences to those who were killed and injured in today’s attack, including, sadly, two British Embassy staff. It is a tragic reminder that there are some who still seek to undermine the progress that has been made towards peace and security in Afghanistan. I also pay tribute to the courage and commitment of our armed forces, 453 of whom lost their lives, and to the many others who have suffered life-changing injuries in the service of our country. Their legacy is that terrorists have been prevented from using Afghanistan as a launch pad for attacks on our streets. The Afghan security forces whom our armed forces have helped to mentor, and who are now securing the country’s future, have played a major part in that. The sacrifice of our servicemen and women will never be forgotten.
	Since the last quarterly statement to the House on 9 September, a national unity Government has been formed, with Dr Ashraf Ghani as President and Dr Abdullah Abdullah as chief executive. President Ghani was inaugurated on 29 September. That was a historic moment: the first democratic transfer of power from one elected President to another. In their first significant act, the Government signed the bilateral security agreement and the NATO status of forces agreement. During my meeting with President Ghani in September, I was encouraged to note that he had clear priorities for the new Government: tackling corruption, making progress on the peace process, working towards stronger economic development and improving regional relations, including relations with Pakistan. We will be working closely with President Ghani and chief executive Abdullah as they continue Afghanistan’s significant development.
	The Afghan national security forces successfully secured the elections this year, with more than 7 million people voting. The forces have performed well against a determined enemy. Despite prolonged fighting over the summer, the Taliban have failed to take any district centres, or to capitalise on small and temporary tactical gains in north Helmand and the taking of significant casualties, but they remain a potent force. Afghan forces continue to conduct clearance operations against the Taliban, and their strong performance this year should serve them well in the next fighting season.
	The UK had the second largest force in Afghanistan, and our troops undertook some of the heaviest fighting, but it is important to remember that we were only one part of a coalition of 51 nations that helped to build the Afghan national security forces from scratch to a force of over 330,000, which is capable of battling the insurgency and sustaining progress in the removal of the terrorist threat. There can be no guarantees, but the sacrifices made by coalition and Afghan forces have given Afghanistan the best possible chance of a stable future.
	The UK has taken a leading role at the Afghan National Army Officer Academy, and I addressed the graduates of the first battalion at their graduation ceremony during my visit in September. We will continue
	our role there next year with around 470 troops as the United Kingdom contribution to the NATO Resolute Support mission, a coalition of 35 nations. Our contribution will focus principally on mentoring in the officer academy. We have committed ourselves to providing about £70 million a year to help to sustain the Afghan forces, thus reaffirming another element of the enduring international commitment to Afghanistan.
	The redeployment of matériel has been a challenging process, but, notwithstanding the scepticism expressed by many people, it is now almost complete. The redeployment from Iraq in 2009 was conducted predominantly through Kuwait, across 130 km of relatively permissive lines of communication. In Afghanistan, the land routes to the nearest port were 900 km long, and included areas of significant threat. Despite that, about three and a half times as many containers and about four times as many vehicles have been redeployed from Afghanistan as were returned from Iraq.
	I want to put on record my praise for the efficiency of our military planners and logisticians, as well as that of our combat troops. All our major matériel has now left Afghanistan. At the height of our involvement, we had some 137 bases; more than 120 have now been handed to the Afghan authorities, and the rest have been dismantled. Earlier this week, our troops left Kandahar airfield for the last time, following our departure from Camp Bastion in October.
	As we face new terror threats, we are learning the hard lessons of our Afghan campaign. First, to take on an insurgency, armed forces must gain the trust and support of the local population. That support must be inclusive, crossing political lines and bridging tribal divides, and it must also involve early training of local security forces. Secondly, the increasingly complex nature of 21st-century conflict means that we must build strong international military coalitions—alliances that are ready to act, and capable of sharing resources. Our experience of forging partnerships in Afghanistan provides a model for the sort of agile and effective rapid reaction forces that NATO countries pledged to develop at the recent NATO summit in Wales.
	Thirdly, military action can only be one part of a wider solution. In Afghanistan we pioneered a cross-Government approach that combined defence, diplomacy and development via our provincial reconstruction teams. They were deployed in the Afghan provinces, and combined military and civilian organisations to strengthen local political institutions, empower local leaders, and improve social and economic progress.
	When I visited Helmand, I saw the difference that has been made by the United Kingdom, including our armed forces. Most citizens in Helmand now have access to health care, household incomes have risen by 20% since 2010, and more than 120,000 students are enrolled in Government schools across the province—including nearly 30,000 girls, compared with none in 2001. We will continue to support that development, and our continued support will include maintaining our contribution of £178 million a year in development aid until at least 2017.
	Next week, the London conference on Afghanistan will be led by our Prime Minister, President Ghani, chief executive Abdullah, and other leading international figures. It will focus on the future development partnership
	between the international community and the new Afghan Government to build on the foundations that we have laid over the last 13 years, and will reaffirm our enduring commitment to supporting the future of Afghanistan.
	There remain significant challenges ahead for Afghanistan, but we have helped to develop Afghan security forces who have proved that they are able to take the fight to the insurgency. Tackling the drugs trade remains a considerable and generational challenge, but we and our international partners are committed to helping the Afghan Government to combat it. The international community is working with the new Afghan Government to secure long-term fiscal sustainability, and we are pleased to see the new efforts that are being made to tackle corruption.
	We fully support the Afghanistan Government’s promotion of prosperity through jobs, growth and investment, which builds on the sacrifices made by our armed forces. That campaign was long, but it was worth while, and we believe that we have given Afghanistan the best chance of a safer future.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for his courtesy in informing me earlier in the week that he would be making it today. I concur with both the tone and content of his remarks, and was particularly pleased to hear about his discussions with President Ghani, the good progress of the draw-down and the continuing work on development issues.
	We are all shocked by this morning’s despicable terrorist attack on a British embassy vehicle in Kabul. People have lost their lives. It reminds us of the dangers still faced and the challenges that remain. Can the Secretary of State give us any further details about that incident?
	Like the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to our armed forces. Our servicemen and women perform their duties with bravery, honour and distinction. Nowhere has that been more evident than in Afghanistan. I think in particular of the 453 members of our armed forces who gave their lives serving our country, as well as the many who were injured. They and their loved ones are in my thoughts and, I am sure, the thoughts of all Members of this House. As the Secretary of State knows, we support efforts to have them commemorated in a national memorial in London, and will work with the Government and others to bring that about. Can he update the House on the progress on that?
	I say with sincerity that the United Kingdom’s role in Afghanistan in the past 13 years is one we can be proud of. Does the Secretary of State agree that our combat mission was a success? It has been hard fought and we have paid a heavy price, but the consequences would have been far worse had we, in 2001, left Afghanistan to those who subjugated that country and its people and used it as a base to launch terrorist attacks on other countries and their peoples. In a world that is of course still dangerous and unpredictable, the UK armed forces in Afghanistan have enhanced our safety and security in Britain by assisting the Afghans to take charge of theirs. Does he agree that those of us in positions of leadership have a responsibility to explain to the public the complexities and success of our role in Afghanistan?
	The Opposition are convinced that the UK along with our allies must remain involved in assisting the fledgling Afghanistan as it takes important steps to manage its own security. Only with the international community’s enduring support can we work to ensure that hard-won gains in Afghanistan are not lost. Therefore, I want to focus my remaining remarks on the future and the role the United Kingdom will play.
	The Afghan national security forces did not exist in 2001, but are making steady progress. Can the Secretary of State update us on the strength of the ANSF and the work being done to sustain and professionalise the army, police and air force? What specific work will be done by British armed forces in continuing training and support, and how many personnel will be involved? Can he tell us whether any of that work will involve helping with the removal of unexploded ordnance? Does he believe that sufficient numbers are being committed for the task that they have?
	I and my shadow Cabinet colleagues are committed to a cross-Government, multi-agency approach, which the Secretary of State mentioned. The key tenet of that will of course be the relationship between the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. Can he tell us how many staff from each Department, excluding the armed forces, will remain in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2014?
	To that end, I welcome, as the Secretary of State did, the forthcoming London Afghanistan conference, which will have the full support of the Labour party in seeking to chart a plan for security, socio-economic and development gains. He may know that the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women, Rashida Manjoo, has called on the Government of Afghanistan and the international community to adopt sustainable measures to address the causes and consequences of gender-based violence in the country. Can the Secretary of State confirm that violence against women and girls will be a priority at the London conference? Can he tell us how many women will be invited to take part in the main conference as well as the private sector and regional co-operation side events? Does he agree that the conference communiqué should commit to the full implementation of the national action plan for the women of Afghanistan and the elimination of violence against women?
	The conference will no doubt receive an update on progress towards a political settlement. Several weeks ago, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani invited the Taliban to join national reconciliation negotiations and earlier this month Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif backed Ghani’s initiative. Can the Secretary of State give a commitment that the UK Government will work and support those involved to help to make those negotiations a success?
	I hope the message that the Government, our allies and the people of Afghanistan take from what the Secretary of State and I have both said is that the UK is committed to ensuring a peaceful, stable and, in time, prosperous Afghanistan. We in the UK stand by Afghanistan’s fledgling democracy and we will do all we can to help it on its journey to a brighter, better future.
	We owe that to the 453 brave service personnel from our armed forces who gave their lives to allow it to happen. It will be their legacy.

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to the shadow Defence Secretary both for what he said and for the tone in which he said it. As we learnt this morning, there is no guarantee of an absolutely safe and stable future for Afghanistan, but I believe that we have given it the best possible chance of a stable future.
	Let me try to pick up some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. On this morning’s incident in Kabul, he will appreciate that it happened only a few hours ago. I can confirm that, sadly, two British embassy staff were killed. I believe a number of others were killed and injured, including passers-by. The incident occurred not at the embassy itself but within Kabul, some distance from the embassy. As soon as I have more details, I will of course ensure that he and the House have them.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the London memorial. He will have seen the announcement a few days ago that the memorial appeal, which was launched in The Sun, will be headed by a former chief of the defence staff, Lord Stirrup, who will be in charge of raising private sector contributions. The memorial will be in London but it is worth reminding the House that the memorial wall at Camp Bastion is being returned to this country and will be erected in the national memorial arboretum in Staffordshire.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me to agree that the campaign was a success and worth while. It was certainly worth while. I believe that the decision to intervene with other countries in the light of the attack on the twin towers in 2001 was right. I do not think now there can be any question about that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm our future commitment. It is a good time to emphasise to the new Afghan Government that, although we have withdrawn our combat troops, we are not walking away from Afghanistan. We will underline that at the London conference, but our commitment to the Resolute Support mission will be enduring for 2015 and for 2016.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the make-up of the ANSF. That is a mixture of army, police and other elements, including an air force, which will take some time to develop. However, having met the local Afghan army corps commanders in Helmand province, I have no doubt about their appetite for defending their country. I saw that at the graduation ceremony that I was privileged to attend on behalf of the UK. I saw the determination of all those young officer cadets to get out into the field and defend their country against the kind of violence that we have seen and that continues sporadically in some areas.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the continuing UK presence. As I said, we will retain some 470 personnel in Afghanistan, largely in the Kabul area. They will continue to work at the national officer academy. They will provide advice on counter-terrorism and support to the security ministries. Our force will include an element of force protection, but it will be located mainly in and around Kabul. I cannot give him specific figures for the other Government Departments but, if he will allow me, I will write to him on that specific point.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the London conference. The programme for the main event at the end of next week is still being developed with the Government of Afghanistan. However, ensuring that Afghan women’s and girls’ issues feature prominently is a top priority, and we are deliberately planning the conference in such a way that those are incorporated across all the main themes, including discussions on the overall reform agenda.
	If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman on any further questions that I might not have picked up.

Liam Fox: As someone who was looking at the scale of the draw-down at an early stage, I ask my right hon. Friend to do me the favour of passing on my thanks and congratulations to all those, both civilian and military, who have been involved in a magnificent logistical operation. The Ministry of Defence is often criticised—including, I have to say, on occasion, by myself—but this time what it has achieved is nothing short of spectacular, and it deserves the thanks and congratulations of the whole House because it has done our country proud.

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and he is right that there is occasional criticism of the Ministry, but I will be delighted to pass on his congratulations. This was a huge logistical exercise, and there were many who told us at the time that it simply could not be done and the materiel would not be brought out safely—that the convoys would be attacked and the lines interdicted and so on—but that did not happen. That is in very large part due to the skill, commitment and professionalism of the planners and logisticians, as well as to civil servants in my Ministry, who sometimes do not get the praise we rightly accord, of course, in the first place, to our combat troops.

Mike Gapes: May I add my voice to that of the Secretary of State concerning the appalling terrorist attack today? Does he agree that this shows that it is not just our military but many civilians and locally engaged people and people in the various private security organisations who put their lives at risk in trying to help the people of Afghanistan, and that we should recognise that this is a threat not just in Afghanistan, but throughout the world?

Michael Fallon: I certainly endorse that. A huge number of people have been helping in the effort to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan—as the hon. Gentleman says, civil contractors, locally employed staff and others—and it is right that we acknowledge not simply their commitment, but the fact that they, too, have been willing to put themselves in harm’s way to work for a better future.

Alistair Burt: As a former Minister for Afghanistan who knows the embassy and staff there, may I, too, express my deep sadness at the events of this morning? This will have affected the place very badly, and indeed the whole of the FCO family, particularly as it is highly likely that our security staff were involved. We express our thanks to them for the work they do to protect many of us as we go around the world. We know the Government will do all they can to support them at this difficult time.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that such events make it even more important that the international community continue to provide support not just in the form of security but, crucially, of economic development, and that the conference next week in London can demonstrate that and show that upon the sacrifices of today and previous years a future for Afghanistan can, and will, be built by all of us working with the Afghan people?

Michael Fallon: I thank my right hon. Friend. Few Members of this House have as much experience as he gained in his time as Minister with responsibility for this area, and he probably knows better than any other Member of this House just how deeply this attack will be felt in the FCO family. There are going to be attacks like this. The terrorist threat—the insurgency—has not been fully defeated, and I know the Government there and their armed forces expect that and are ready to take that on.
	My right hon. Friend is also right to focus on the future economic development of Afghanistan. While I am pleased that other NATO countries have now fulfilled the commitment they made to the Resolute Support mission and that finally, the numbers of troops we need from the different participating countries have been pledged, it is equally important that other countries now rally behind the London conference and make the same kind of commitment to Afghanistan’s longer term economic development. We have a Government of national unity in place there now—a Government whom I believe have a better prospect of delivering the kind of economic reform that is well placed to tackle corruption, but they are going to need the help of the international community, and I grateful to my right hon. Friend for continuing to underline that.

Barry Gardiner: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. He will know that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has said there is a 7% increase in the number of hectares under poppy cultivation this year, and a 17% increase in opium production. What measures will be taken and what money will be allocated at the London conference specifically for farmers to move from the production of poppies and opium to other crops, and what money will be made available to them to make up the shortfall in their income resulting from losing that high-value crop?

Michael Fallon: If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the details of the subsidy that is made available to farmers. We should be frank about this, however, and he is right to draw attention to the challenge posed by the poppy crop. It has increased—let us make no bones about that—and it presents a threat not just to the future of Afghanistan but to the west as well, where these drugs eventually get through. So it is a challenge that the new Government have to surmount, and in doing so they are going to need all the assistance and expertise that other countries can offer.

Bob Russell: I support the Defence Secretary’s tributes in his statement, and as a constituency MP I wish to draw attention to 16 Air Assault Brigade. Can he elaborate on the priorities for the new Afghan Government in working towards stronger economic development? Will that include bringing on
	stream the turbine at Kajaki dam, which soldiers from 16 Air Assault Brigade took there more than six years ago?

Michael Fallon: I note the tribute my hon. Friend has paid to his own unit. I could easily have singled out a whole number of units but I deliberately did not because the campaign in Afghanistan involved many—from all three services, in the end—and I thought it invidious to pay tribute to any particular one. However, I certainly pay tribute to his.
	I am familiar with the turbine that was, at some cost and with great difficulty, brought up to the dam, and I believe there are plans to get that working finally. I will write to my hon. Friend with details on that.

Paul Flynn: Will the Defence Secretary thank and congratulate Mrs Hazel Hunt of Abergavenny, who has set up a very successful new charity named Welsh Warrior, which is helping to provide aid and comfort to those Afghan veterans who have been maimed in mind or body? Mrs Hunt is also the mother of Richard Hunt, who was the 200th solider to die in Afghanistan. She recently said, “My son was killed because of the politicians. They asked too much of the armed services.” Mrs Hunt is asking for an immediate inquiry into the war. Can she have an assurance that that inquiry will not be delayed for five years, as the Chilcot inquiry has been, so that the guilty cannot hide the truth?

Michael Fallon: I am happy to pay tribute to the work of Mrs Hunt, and I think I acknowledged the enormity of the sacrifice made by our servicemen and women, not simply those who lost their lives but those who suffered life-changing injuries during the campaign, and it is right that we should continue to pay that tribute.
	The matter of an inquiry is not wholly one for me, the hon. Gentleman will understand, but I am clear that we should learn the tactical lessons of the campaign. We are already learning some of them, such as the way we combat IEDs, and I drew attention to some of the wider strategic lessons we need to learn in working with our partners, but no decision has yet been taken on the nature of any inquiry.

Gerald Howarth: I entirely endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) about the seriousness and importance of the enduring commitment to which the Secretary of State has referred. Last year, the then Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Admiral Jim Stavridis, asked me to impress upon the British Government the importance of maintaining a continuing military contribution more in line with that of the Germans, who are committing about 1,000 troops. Given what has happened in Iraq and the catastrophic consequences of the reversal of the United States’ plan to leave 10,000 troops there—they were withdrawn because of Maliki’s failure to offer a status of forces agreement—will my right hon. Friend keep under review the British military contribution in Afghanistan? Many of those who have been bereaved will feel that their sons and
	daughters will have died in vain if we do not secure enduring peace in that country. That is a tall order, but I believe that it would be valuable if the Secretary of State could keep the British military contribution under review to ensure that what happened in Iraq does not happen in Afghanistan.

Michael Fallon: I made it clear earlier that we have withdrawn our combat troops from Afghanistan and that we are not going to revisit that particular decision. I have outlined to the House the nature of our enduring mission there, which will help the Afghan military in the challenge that it faces. My hon. Friend is right to draw some comparison with Iraq. In many senses, Afghanistan is better placed, in that we have left as our legacy an Afghan security force that is genuinely representative of all parts of the country. That was not the case with the army that was bequeathed under Maliki in Iraq. Afghanistan therefore has a better chance of dealing with the insurgency in the name of the whole of the country, and of not being subject to the political and tribal difficulties that the Iraqi national army has experienced.

John Woodcock: The British armed forces have spent more than a decade fighting the Taliban, yet it seems that the Taliban are now part of the reconciliation negotiations. What does the Secretary of State see as the future role of the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Michael Fallon: I have discussed with President Ghani his approach to this. There are moderate elements in the Taliban, and it is important for the new Government to reach out to them whenever possible. That is the ambition of President Ghani who—rather differently from his predecessor—is open to that and to building more effective international alliances with his neighbours, including Pakistan, India and China. It is in everyone’s interest that Afghanistan has a stable future.

Nicola Blackwood: We should be proud that millions of Afghan girls are now in school and that thousands of women are doctors, teachers and politicians, but Afghanistan remains one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a woman. Many women in public life there pay with their lives. In the light of such violence, it is unlikely that any peace process that excludes women will be sustainable, so, while I welcome the Secretary of State’s assertion that the London conference will consider women’s issues, may I ask him to go further? Will he make it his priority to ensure that women are not only represented but able to speak for themselves at the conference and at all future peace negotiations?

Michael Fallon: I will certainly bear that in mind as we finalise the agenda and programme for the London conference. I found, on my visits to Afghanistan, that women were becoming increasingly involved in the future of the country. It was noticeable at the first passing-out parade of the officer academy that there were female cadets training there—two platoons are training at the moment—and that, after I had spoken to the first battalion of cadets to graduate, I was followed by a
	female member of the Afghan Parliament who addressed them in far more rigorous and robust terms than I had done about their obligation to defend their country.

Stephen Doughty: I, like many other Members who have visited Afghanistan, have been protected and supported by British embassy staff in Kabul, so may I also express my deepest sympathy to the families and friends of those who have been killed in this morning’s tragic events? On that note, will the Secretary of State set out his plans for any national recognition or memorialisation of British civilians and civilian staff who have served, lost their lives or suffered injury in Afghanistan during the campaign? Also, on the issue of memorialising servicemen and women, has he issued any guidance to local authorities around the UK on how those who lost their lives in the campaign might best be memorialised locally, in addition to at the national memorials?

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first comment. The tragic event in Kabul this morning is a reminder that this campaign has involved all kinds of people—civilian contractors, locally employed staff, and so on—in addition to the combat troops that we seconded. The intention is that the main London memorial will pay tribute to the memory of all those involved—everyone from the civil service staff in my Ministry all the way through to those who fought and those who supported those who fought. That will certainly include those who were employed on a civilian basis in Kabul. I will certainly look at his suggestion about encouraging local authorities to play their part in this memorialisation. I understand that some councils have already taken the decision to name particular streets after local heroes who lost their lives in the campaign. This is certainly something that we ought to encourage.

Julian Lewis: Many of the specialists involved in the successful withdrawal of heavy equipment from Afghanistan are from the 17th Port and Maritime Regiment of the Royal Logistic Corps based at Marchwood in my constituency, and I hope that the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to confirm that that military port facility will be neither run down nor degraded in any way.
	On the question of the lessons of the campaign, it is a fact that there are al-Qaeda-type groups in many other countries, too, and we must develop a doctrine—based on strategic bases and bridgehead areas, as I have endeavoured to suggest on previous occasions—to enable us to tackle those groups without having to take on nation-building from the ground up in every country where they appear, because that is an impossible strategy and we need a flexible, sensible strategy for the future.

Michael Fallon: I note what my hon. Friend says about Marchwood, of which he has been a great champion. He does not need me to confirm the important role that it has played in the recovery of so much equipment, matériel and vehicles from Afghanistan. I can certainly confirm that we will have a continuing use for that kind of facility.
	I also note what my hon. Friend says about the doctrine. We are seeing al-Qaeda in different forms in some countries, and we are seeing it mutate into ISIL.
	He makes the important point that the western nations are simply unable to reconstruct whole countries time and again.

Jeremy Corbyn: I pay tribute, as everyone else does and should, to the sacrifice and the loss of service people in Afghanistan. May I ask the Secretary of State to be slightly more objective about the situation that the Afghan people are now facing? The levels of poverty are very serious, and large numbers of Afghan people are seeking refuge in other places because they feel that they can no longer live safely there. He indicated in answer to an earlier question that the new Afghan Government were going to undertake some kind of talks with the Taliban. One obviously hopes that that will bring about long-term peace and stability for the country, and that it will result in the recognition of the rights and role of women in society there. Does he not think, given the fact that British troops and many others have been there for 13 years, that the levels of poverty, drug production and corruption are very serious? Should we not be a bit more objective about what has happened, rather than being triumphalist about it?

Michael Fallon: I hope the House will agree that I have not been triumphalist about the campaign. I believe the campaign we fought, for which so many sacrificed their lives, was certainly worth while, but I am not triumphalist about it in the least. Afghanistan remains a relatively poor country and a place in which there is still great danger, as we have learned from this morning’s events. I hope the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that Afghanistan is a more prosperous and safer place than it was 12 or 13 years ago, and that women have a better prospect now of fuller participation in civic life than they did 10 or 13 years ago. I have noted that the drugs trade remains an increasing and enduring challenge to the current Afghan Government, and, indeed, to the international community. He is right to say that we should not be triumphalist about this campaign, but, equally, he should recognise some of the progress that has been made.

Bob Stewart: One fifth of the Royal Navy are in the Royal Marine Commandos and one quarter of Army personnel are in infantry regiments. At airfields, force protection is achieved using the admirable Royal Air Force Regiment. Those branches of our armed forces have taken by far the highest percentage of casualties in Afghanistan—I believe the figure is over 80% or over 90%—and it is always the same in any active operation. Only by using those combat soldiers, be they in Navy, RAF or Army uniform, who do the very dangerous business of closing with the enemy, are military conflicts normally brought to a satisfactory conclusion. They truly represent the very essence of the martial risks always run by our courageous service personnel. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in any future strategic defence and security review that recognition must be placed centre stage?

Michael Fallon: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, who brings to the House his own military experience, and I am sure he will continue to press that point as we approach the strategic defence and security review next year. It is important to emphasise, as he did, that all
	three services—the Marines, the RAF and the Army—were heavily involved in this campaign, and it is slightly invidious to pick out any individual unit as this campaign was fought by the services. However, of course he is right to say that those in the front line have borne the heaviest burden of the combat.

Rehman Chishti: I very much welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement and endorse everything he has said. The BBC documentary “The War Widows of Afghanistan” talks about the estimated 2 million war widows after decades of war. Some 13,000 Afghanistan soldiers are thought to have died. What support is being provided to those Afghan women who have lost their husbands?

Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the heavy casualties taken by the rest of the Afghan population—of course, there were years of conflict before we even got to Afghanistan in 2001. The Afghan war widows are the responsibility of the new Afghan Government, but we will be working with that Government from next week’s London conference onwards. As I said earlier, the role and recognition of women in Afghan society will be a key part of that conference.

Jason McCartney: Among those killed in Afghanistan were constituents of mine serving in the Royal Logistic Corps, the Yorkshire Regiment and the Royal Air Force Regiment. Will my right hon. Friend continue to make the case for our intervention in Afghanistan, to show that their sacrifice was not in vain? Will he also do all he can to keep the families and loved ones of those who made that sacrifice updated on the progress of the national memorial, which will be a fitting tribute to their sacrifice?

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who of course served in the armed forces. He makes a good point about keeping those who lost loved ones in the campaign and those who suffered injuries up to date with the progress on the memorial, and I certainly undertake to do that.

John Baron: Most of us agreed at the time with the initial deployment to rid the country of al-Qaeda, but what we tend to forget in this House is that that mission was accomplished within a couple of years. The mistake we made was then to allow the mission to morph into the much bigger one of nation building, something we did not properly resource. Given that—to use the Defence Secretary’s own words—the Taliban “remain a potent force”, may I draw him out a little and ask him what he thinks the key lessons are from this intervention?

Michael Fallon: I think I drew attention to the military lessons we can learn: these campaigns are best fought by local armies that have the support of the local
	population and have that inclusive support across tribal and political divides; these campaigns are waged best in conjunction with international partnerships, so that we learn and can operate each other’s equipment; and military action has to be supplemented with effective economic and political support alongside it. I certainly acknowledge that there is a great deal more to do in all three of those respects.

Peter Bone: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and keeping us so well informed, and I am also grateful for the responsible approach taken by the Opposition. May I, too, pay my personal tribute to the men and women who have served in Afghanistan? Looking back at the conflict, is the Secretary of State now satisfied that we had all the right equipment for our troops? In particular, did we have enough helicopters throughout the whole of the campaign?

Michael Fallon: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that he, too, had close family involved in the campaign. I have been focused on dealing with the draw-down from Afghanistan and ensuring that we have the right remaining balance of force there for 2015-16. I have not had time to look back as to when and where the equipment was provided in the right order. As I said to the House, no decision has yet been taken on the nature of any inquiry, but it is important that where there are military lessons to be learned from the campaign we do learn them, and reasonably quickly.

Philip Hollobone: My right hon. Friend rightly said in his statement that the major legacy of our intervention is that terrorists have been prevented from using Afghanistan as a launch pad for attacks on our streets, and all involved are to be hugely commended for that terrific achievement. But what we have not been able to do is prevent the flow of drugs and the poppy growing, which ends up killing young people on our streets in this country. He rightly says that that represents a generational challenge to us, but may I urge him to attach a top priority, now that the security situation is as good as we could possibly have left it in Afghanistan, to concentrate our efforts on tackling the problem of opium production there? It should be made a top priority for both his Department and the Department for International Development.

Michael Fallon: I am happy to take on the commitment to relay what my hon. Friend has said to my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary. My hon. Friend rightly says that the increase in poppy production is a threat, not simply to the stability of Afghanistan, but to the west and to the streets of our own countries. We therefore have every interest in helping the new Government face up to that particular challenge.

Point of Order

Vernon Coaker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure Members will have been as surprised as I was by media reports this morning that the US marine corps will be offered the use of HMS Queen Elizabeth for flight operations. That is because a bad decision, a change of decision and then indecision by the Government about the purchase of F-35Bs will leave British aircraft carriers with a gap of years before we have any aircraft to fly from them. Have you received any indication from the Defence Secretary as to whether he intends to offer the House an explanation about this hugely important issue?

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is not a point of order for the Chair. However, the Defence Secretary is in his place and if he indicates to me that he wishes to make a point of order further to that point of order, which was not a point of order, I will of course invite him to do so.

Michael Fallon: Perhaps I should not probe too hard as to whether this is now a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me just make it very clear that the reports the shadow Defence Secretary has been reading are completely incorrect.

Backbench Business

Inequality

Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
	That this House calls on the Government to set guideline targets for remuneration which over time reduce the ratio between top and bottom incomes in large organisations to no more than 50 to 1.
	Even at this rather late hour, when the first debate would normally be drawing to a close, I am nevertheless grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate on inequality—not least because the excesses of extreme inequality are increasingly seen as a serious, moral, economic and social problem, yet the issue has not received the attention in this House that it clearly deserves.
	It is worth saying at the outset that concern over this matter is not the preserve of the political left. In this past month, Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, and Janet Yellen, the chair of the US Federal Reserve, have both argued that the enormous growth in inequality over the past few decades was not only wrong morally but was having increasingly baleful economic consequences. Then there were the strictures of Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, arguing that the current explosion of inequality was now acting as a brake on growth. They all say that inequality fosters fear, creates too much demand for credit to compensate for squeezed living standards, drives asset price bubbles, catalyses financial instability, and, by displacing too much risk on those who cannot bear it, undermines the legitimacy of capitalism.
	The facts on ballooning inequality are broadly well understood. Official statistics show that average weekly pay in June this year was £477, while the average annual take-home remuneration among the FTSE 100 chief executives was £4.3 million, or £83,000 a week. The ratio between their remuneration and the remuneration of the average UK worker is therefore about 175:1. That needs to be put into perspective. In 1998, according to the High Pay Centre think-tank, a FTSE 100 boss was typically paid 47 times more than their workers. In other words, in just 16 years, the gap between top incomes and the average wage has nearly quadrupled. The obvious question then is: is all this justified? In fact, there is rather little correlation between the surge in executive remuneration and company performance; sometimes, there is even a negative correlation.
	The director of the High Pay Centre, Deborah Hargreaves, explains the phenomenon. She says:
	“The only reason why their pay has increased so rapidly compared to their employees is that they are able to get away with it.”
	They are able to get away with it largely because of the structural divide in the way in which pay is determined in this country. For manual workers, it is by collective bargaining. That has dramatically declined in the past 30 years, leading to a very sharp fall in the share of wages in GDP from 65% to about 53%. For white-collar workers, it is by private contracts, which are laid down by the employers. But for chief executives in the boardroom,
	it is by remuneration committees, specifically chosen by the board itself, which largely operate on the principle of “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.” That is not a system that carries credibility across the whole spectrum of the work force.
	One might even question why such elaborate devices are needed for top executives to secure a maximum uplift in pay, since one would have thought that £80,000 a week was far beyond what is necessary for the most comfortable lifestyle. Indeed, one could reduce a £2.5 million income by almost 95% and the recipient would still be in the top 1% of all earners in the UK. That is a staggering fact.
	Are incomes 10 or 20 times more than the earnings of those already considered very, very rich strictly necessary? The only answer seems to be that these turbo-charged salaries have almost nothing to do with performance and everything to do with chief executive officers keeping up with each other in a status race. In other words, rather as in the end of the Victorian period, which we are getting closer to now, the very rich constantly demand yet more wealth to show it off in order to demonstrate where they stand in the pecking order.
	Does that matter? The apologists for inequality have always traditionally argued that it does not because it does no harm to other people. Peter Mandelson notoriously argued that new Labour was
	“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.
	But he did add
	“as long as they pay their taxes.”
	That was partly on the grounds that wealth would then trickle down to everyone else, but it has not trickled down; it has gushed up as if from a geyser. According to the Sunday Times rich list, the richest 1,000 persons in this country—just 0.003% of the adult population—have doubled their collective wealth in the six years since the crash, from a staggering £250 billion to more than £500 billion. Moreover, that does harm other people. It leads to smouldering resentment, which can at times explode if triggered by a sudden event, such as the five days of rioting after Mark Duggan was shot in August 2011. It undermines trust and solidarity and it weakens the social fabric of communities. Above all, it has been shown unequivocally by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in “The Spirit Level” that across all countries—it is not just the UK—the greater the inequality, the greater the degree of social pathology in terms of homicide levels, crime and violence, mental illness, imprisonment, teenage pregnancies, obesity, maths and literary educational scores, life expectancy, infant mortality and many others.
	It is not just the poor who suffer, although they certainly suffer the most; those impacts extend widely across the whole society. It is not just the social impacts of inequality that damage society, but the economic ones as well. It weakens aggregate demand, which is serious at times like the present when all the other potential sources of demand—Government expenditure, business investment and net exports—are negative.
	Andy Haldane, the chief economist at the Bank of England, recently summed up the economic impacts of excessive inequality. He said that
	“there is rising evidence that extreme inequality harms, durably and significantly, the stability of the financial system and growth in the economy. It slows development of the human, social and
	physical capital necessary for raising living standards and improving wellbeing. That penny is starting to drop among policymakers and politicians.”
	I hope that his last comment was right.
	What should be done? The terms of the motion suggest that the Government should set guidelines for remuneration that, over time, reduce the ratio between top and bottom incomes in large organisations to no more than 50:1. That would still allow top incomes to reach nearly £24,000 a week or £1.25 million a year. I think that that is justified on two grounds. First, in the period when capitalism flourished most in the UK—that is, the three decades after the war—the ratio was 40:1 or less. Secondly, the most successful dynamic economies with the highest long-term growth figures and the greatest social cohesion in the past 40 years—I am thinking of Japan up to the 1990s, the east Asian tiger economies, Sweden, Norway and Singapore, among others—all had a ratio of less than 50:1.
	Of course, there are other ways of moving towards the same objective. The Business Secretary introduced new regulations that became operative this year, empowering shareholders with a binding veto over company executive pay policy. Despite his good intentions and the shareholder spring that peaked in 2012, that has not ever been called on, partly because the holdings and voting rights on pay are controlled by very wealthy fund managers and the work force have no say in the process at all. That suggests that the structure of incentives and pressures needs to be recalibrated.
	I have already quoted Deborah Hargreaves’s remark that executive pay soars because they can get away with it. Corporate power and the greed and self-interest that go with it have increased dramatically over the past three decades and they are still increasing. That needs to be redressed. There are several measures that could help. One is the mandatory publication of company pay ratios, as is already operated by John Lewis, where the ratio is 75:1, and TSB bank, where it is 65:1. Another would be to strengthen the coverage of trade union collective bargaining, which has shrunk dramatically over the past 30 years from 82% to a wholly inadequate 23%.
	A further measure would be to increase the prevalence of work-force-wide profit sharing. In my view, the most effective mechanism would be the introduction in all large companies of what I would call an enterprise council, made up of representatives of all the main grades of employees and meeting at least once a year to open up the books, look at all the company’s activities, consider how failures could be corrected and performance improved, think about the financial implications of depreciation, investment, stock control, dividends and so on and then examine the bids for pay increases across the company over the next year. That would strengthen the cohesion and solidarity of the company, greatly improve morale and productivity and almost certainly enhance profitability. I commend that, and all the other measures I have proposed, to the House.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing the debate. It is extremely important that the House should consider the growing inequality in this country and specific measures that might be taken to reduce it.
	I start by painting a picture of where we are with inequality, both nationally and in my constituency. We know that about 20% of working households rely on some form of tax credit, which shows that a great many people are in work but are relying on benefits because they are earning very low wages. That is compounded by gender. We know that since 2011, the gender gap in wages has been getting worse, not better. The gap between all women working and all men working is about 18.6%; for those who work full time, it is 14.9%. That means that women earn about 85p for every £1 that a man earns. That is important because although inequality affects large numbers of people across our work force, we must be clear that it affects women more than men.
	We also know that 3.5 million children nationally are in poor households. That means that they are unable to afford adequate food or transport or to join in activities with their friends. That demonstrates the huge gap emerging between people at one end of the income spectrum and those who are increasing their wages at the other end. I experience that in my Durham constituency a great deal. Take-home pay in the north-east is less than it is in the rest of the country, so although we can give national figures about people relying on benefits, the problem is much greater in the north-east.
	Changes to benefits have had an impact on areas like County Durham, where people are losing about £565 per working-age adult—money is going from people who are working and relying on top-up benefits—but the situation is also worsening for those who are out of work and relying on benefits. This is evidenced daily by the increasing number of people using food banks in my constituency. Indeed, some of the people who run the food bank in Durham talked to me recently about setting up a clothing bank and doing so locally, because they recognise that people sometimes cannot even afford to get to the charity shops in the city centre.
	My contention is that a raft of measures need to be taken to reduce inequality. Before we look at them, however, perhaps we could stop for a moment and consider what has happened at the other end of the spectrum. The top 100 executives in the FTSE 100 companies took home as much as 131 times the amount their average employee did, yet only 15 of those companies have committed to pay their employees a living wage. Across the country, increasing numbers of companies pay the living wage, and we should stop and recognise that. There are some really good examples—a number of our universities pay the living wage, as does John Lewis—but trying to dig around and find them is difficult. We should have a list readily available. We need to consider what measures could be taken to reduce the income gap, and why we should do so.
	Early in the lifetime of this Government, the Prime Minister was keen on looking at measures of happiness. He wanted us to be able to assess what leads to happiness; perhaps he thought that if we had information on that, it would cheer us all up and we would not spend so much time worrying about austerity. I do not know what has happened to all that work, but we do know that people who live in countries where there is more equality are happier. I want to give some advice to the Prime Minister and his colleagues this afternoon: if he wants to make people more content with their life, he and his Government need to address the growing
	inequality by insisting that companies adopt the living wage and that we get away from a low-pay, low-quality job economy.
	Of course, in any economy we need people to work in the service sector. These are important jobs, but we want a much greater variety of jobs, especially high-value ones requiring higher skills. We need to see a real Government programme to support job creation of that type. That is in great contrast to what is available. In preparing for today’s debate, I looked at the jobs available today on my local Jobcentre website in Durham and the levels of income that they offer. The figures are truly shocking. So many of the jobs available do not even pay the living wage. Indeed, about three quarters pay less than the living wage, with about half paying the minimum wage. The jobs available cover everything from care co-ordinators to receptionists and night care assistants. I think we would all regard a senior night care assistant as an important role with significant responsibilities. The job advertised paid £7.35 an hour. These are simply wages that people are not able to live on, which is why so many people rely on in-work benefits.
	We need to challenge our employers in a way that we have not done to date. Why do they think they can take home thousands of pounds a month while not paying the majority of their employees the living wage? I do not know about other hon. Members, but I do not want to live in a country that has such growing inequality. I do not want to live in a country where more and more people cannot afford basic rent. Shelter recently published research that showed that 1 million people took out payday loans just to cover their rent. This is clearly ridiculous in a country like ours which can do so much better.
	This afternoon we are challenging the Government to do more to get employers to pay not only the minimum wage—which they have to do, although some still seem to try to get out of their responsibilities—but a living wage. What do the Government intend to do to encourage the creation of jobs with higher-level skills that pay more and can take us forward to a knowledge-based economy? I also want the Government to challenge the companies that pay huge bonuses and whose directors take home obscene amounts of money to plough more resources into their businesses so that they can be successful and pay a living wage.

Iain Wright: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing what has been a short but perfectly formed debate, and the Backbench Business Committee on agreeing to it. He is right to point out that inequality is one of the most pressing issues facing our economy and society. It is clear that the economy does not work for many working people. Galloping advances in executive pay and real-terms pay cuts for most people in work does not suggest an economic model that is performing well or efficiently or providing the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned that for the past 30 years or so the prevailing model has been the shareholder value model, which was supposed to maximise returns to the shareholder. The argument goes that if there is an
	alignment between the interests of shareholders and executives, perhaps in the form of share option incentive plans, executives would act in the interests of the owners of the company. Evidence shows that that theory has been found wanting. Directors of large companies are often remunerated far in excess of the performance of the company that they lead or the extent to which they have created value for the firm’s stakeholders.
	Don’t get me wrong: leading a company requires enormous skill and judgment, and those men and women—sadly, it is still predominantly men—should be rewarded for bringing such skill and judgment to bear. If that skill results in a company being transformed and improving beyond the norm, that should be recognised and appropriately remunerated; and as my right hon. Friend eloquently said, for all the talk of aligning shareholder and executive interests, ironically, executives have been extracting value from large companies for themselves at the expense of the company, its shareholders, its work force and ultimately its society. Let me illustrate this point.
	In 1980, the median pay of directors in FTSE 100 companies was £63,000. At the time, median pay across the country was £5,400. In 2010, the median pay of directors in FTSE 100 companies was £2.99 million, while median wages for the rest of the country was £25,900. That meant that the ratio of executive wages to the average wage moved over a generation—30 years—from 11:1 to 116:1. And it is not getting any better, despite the recession, and despite stagnating economic activity.
	The High Pay Centre revealed earlier this year that FTSE 100 chief executives received remuneration worth 143 times the average wage. This single fact encapsulates everything that is wrong. It takes a chief executive three days to receive what a worker on average wages earns in a year. That is at a time when there is an explosion in zero-hours contracts and greater insecurity at work for many people. Incomes are lower on average now than they were a decade ago, and the worst off and the lowest paid have seen the biggest falls, leading to a rise in in-work poverty that we have not seen in this country for decades.
	I pay tribute to my fellow north-east MP, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), who made a passionate speech and is well versed in the problems of her constituency. She will know that figures derived from the Northern TUC show that our region has a particular problem in relation to low pay. In Hartlepool more than half of women working part-time are paid below the living wage. She also mentioned the impact of spending cuts on general demand in a local economy. The north-east has borne the brunt of that. In Hartlepool we have lost £680 per household as a result of the austerity measures. That money has been taken away from the economy, exacerbating inequality in this country. We did not have a food bank in Hartlepool in 2010. We do now.
	One in five workers in this country—some 5.2 million employees—are not paid the living wage. That has increased from 3.4 million workers in 2009. The UK has the second highest rate of low pay in the OECD, and lower levels of productivity than our main competitors. All this provides a compelling argument that inequality is not producing a more resilient or a more competitive
	economy. It is clear, as I said, that the economy does not work for most people. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, we will succeed in the global economy only if these issues are tackled and if we address low pay and poor productivity, and work to ensure a more equitable distribution of wages.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned an important point—perhaps all this would be excusable if a growing gulf between average pay and executive remuneration reflected superior company performance. The argument goes that talent on this scale, which is often global in its outlook, requires a premium in remuneration. Superstar pay packages attract super talent, which in turn incentivises superstellar performances. I have never quite understood, though, how executives are expected to be motivated to work harder by means of ever escalating pay, but workers on average and low earnings are supposed to be motivated by greater insecurity and no pay increases at all. But the evidence suggests that there is no correlation between executive pay and company performance—quite the reverse.
	An article by Michael Cooper, Huseyin Gulen and Raghavendra Rau concluded that firms that pay their chief executive officer a sum within the top 10% of pay earn negative returns of –13% over the next five years. Throughout the whole of 2014, the FTSE 100 has fallen in value by 0.02%, even though executive pay has risen. The model of aligning executive pay with shareholder returns is broken, and the executives are the ones who are benefiting at the expense of others.
	There appears to be a correlation between unequal and disproportionate reward at the top and inefficient and dysfunctional performance by the organisation. Far from securing star performers who can transform an organisation and motivate their work force, the more a firm’s executive pay exceeds the average in that company, the higher the rates of industrial action, staff turnover and work-related stress in that company. The evidence suggests that inequality is a disincentive to success, hard work and loyalty, as workers feel resentful that bosses at the top are not earning their remuneration. That breeds discontent, lower productivity and ultimately inferior company performance.
	It is important that there is increased transparency and scrutiny in this area. I appreciate that the Government have made some progress in the past couple of years with its reforms of corporate governance and executive remuneration, but I think the Minister would agree that more needs to be done. That is why we believe that large firms should publish the ratio between the pay of their highest earner and that of the average employee in the organisation. I believe that is Liberal Democrat policy, and I hope the Minister will confirm that and say that it will be Government policy.
	We believe that employees should be members of remuneration committees, ensuring that the voice of the workplace is heard when executive pay is set. We would reintroduce the 50p rate of income tax for the highest earners. We would raise the minimum wage to £8 an hour by 2020, bringing that rate closer to average earnings.
	John Maynard Keynes said:
	“The businessman is only tolerable so long as his gains can be held to bear some relation to what, roughly and in some sense, his activities have contributed to society.”
	This debate has shown, as has evidence collated over the past 30 years, that those gains are often far in excess of what those activities have contributed to society and to
	those executives’ companies. A more unequal society results in a less productive economy. We in this House should resolve to change that.

Jo Swinson: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing this debate. I am grateful that we have the opportunity to discuss this important matter, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time. On many aspects there is substantial agreement across the House.
	The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that concern about the issue is not the preserve of the political left. The Government—not just my party, but my coalition partners—have understood that concern. The very concept of rewarding failure shows that markets are not working as they should. From every political perspective, we want to make sure that people are properly rewarded for doing well and are not rewarded for failure.
	There is concern that levels of directors’ pay have ratcheted upwards. At the same time the link to company performance and wages at other levels in the company has grown much weaker. That is damaging to the long-term interests of business and it is right that we are acting to address this market failure. That is why we have taken decisive action to restore the link between top pay and performance in UK public companies.
	The reforms that we introduced, which came into force last October, create a more robust framework for the setting and reporting of directors’ pay. They have boosted transparency so that what people are paid is clear and easily understood, and have empowered shareholders to hold companies to account through binding votes. They restore a stronger, clearer link between pay and performance, and address the important issue of rewards for failure. Our reforms require companies to report the ratio of average percentage change in employee pay compared with the percentage change in the chief executive’s pay, allowing shareholders to understand whether pay increases apply proportionately to all employees or only to those at the top. They also mean that companies must report on how the pay and conditions of employees informs the remuneration policy for directors, whether they have sought the views of their work force, and how the work force was consulted.
	During the debate concern has been expressed about the pay ratio galloping ahead and hugely increasing. Although I recognise those concerns, it is important to set some of the figures in context. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) mentioned a ratio of 143:1, which I believe is from a report from the High Pay Centre back in August. It is worth noting that subsequent to the initial release of that figure, the High Pay Centre and The Guardian, which had reported it, had to retract the figure because it was found to be a miscalculation. The figure suggested now is 130:1. Another research organisation, Manifest, has suggested that it is 121:1, compared to a peak of 151:1 in 2007. I am not for a moment saying that that is a level that many people would find acceptable, but the trend is not going ever upwards. There seems to have been a peak in 2007 and the ratio is now falling, which I hope hon. Members will recognise and welcome.

Iain Wright: I am glad the Minister has put that clarification on the record. She is galloping away somewhat, rather like executive pay over the past 30 years. May I bring her back to the Government’s reforms? In respect of binding votes, how many companies have had to change their pay policy as a result of shareholders voting against it?

Jo Swinson: I will talk about the particular reforms in a moment. There are two ways in which the Government’s reforms can have an impact on executive pay and, therefore, company behaviour when agreeing directors’ remuneration. One way, obviously, is to have a binding vote that a company could lose, and as a result the pay policy would not go forward. The other way—it is an important one—is that companies, because they know they will face a binding vote on executive pay, will be incentivised to have more detailed discussions with investors and shareholders in advance of the annual general meeting. I would not want us to get into a situation in which we thought that it was only if lots of votes were won that the reforms were not successful, when actually it might be a sign that there is much more engagement, which in itself would be a sign of success.

Michael Meacher: Does the Minister accept that, despite the good intentions of the Business Secretary’s reforms, the fact that they have not actually been exercised suggests that we need to go significantly further and that that is probably because of the excessive influence of very wealthy fund managers and, in particular, because the work force has no say at all? Does she believe that the work force should have some say in executive pay?

Jo Swinson: I certainly think that the points the right hon. Gentleman made about involving the work force are important. That is why our reforms require that it be set out how employees have been involved and consulted. It is not a prescriptive approach, but it requires that to be taken into consideration. Indeed, the Government have tried in other ways to influence corporate governance. For example, the work we have done on employee ownership has supported different types of ownership and engagement models, through various changes to the tax system and the provision of materials on how to make it easier for companies to convert to employee ownership models, so that employees can be much more involved in the running of their companies. We know that that can have real business benefits, because employees buy much more into the success of the company. That also starts to deal with some of the productivity issues that the hon. Member for Hartlepool mentioned.

Iain Wright: The Minister is making a very important point, and I really agree about the need to ensure that employees have a say in the running of their businesses, because that improves the value of those companies. Could that be formulated within corporate governance? Does she agree with the notion of having employees on remuneration committees?

Jo Swinson: I think there is a difference between recognising and supporting business benefits, and prescribing in legislation or regulation exactly how companies should go about doing that. There is a lot of agreement on the advantages for companies, but I do not think there is much agreement with the idea that the
	best way is for the Government to be very prescriptive, stating, “This is exactly what companies must do, and this is the only way to do it.” There are different ways in which companies can achieve that level of engagement successfully. It might be through employee representation on the board or remuneration committee, but there are other ways in which that can be done. We should enable companies to find the way that works best for them.
	We are monitoring the impact of the reforms we are undertaking in the context of the 2014 reporting and annual general meeting season. We want to understand how companies have interpreted and applied the regulations, what trends can be observed in the remuneration packages that have been put forward and how shareholders have responded. We intend to publish the key findings from that work shortly, along with any policy conclusions that flow from them. We have always said that the policy will remain under review, because we want to see how what we have implemented works in practice.
	Of course, it is useful for the Government to take on board and consider interesting proposals made in the House, in the context of looking at how our reforms are actually working. We know from the evidence already available that companies are increasingly responding to shareholder expectations on remuneration. There are positive signs of restraint on levels of directors’ pay and a substantial number of companies have simplified their remuneration policy, linking it much more closely to measurable performance over longer periods of time—that is crucial—to try to get away from the short-termism culture.
	There have been reports in the media about rising pay, but often they reflect the impact of previously agreed pay awards. What matters most in assessing the impact of the reforms is what pay is being awarded under the new regime. The latest evidence shows that the median total remuneration awarded to FTSE 100 CEOs fell by 5% in 2012 and by a further 7% in 2013. Some 35% of those CEOs and 30% of the executive directors did not receive a salary increase at all last year. The median salary increase for FTSE 100 executive directors overall was 2.5%. Only 16% of companies gave their directors a salary increase of more than 3%; in the previous year that figure was 25%. The trend shows that pay is coming down, but obviously we will want to look at all the evidence that comes forward before publishing those findings and having a clearer picture.
	The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton talked about the importance of engaging investors in the process. That ties in closely with the work my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is doing on long-termism, particularly the Kay review, because investment funds, pension funds and so on have a crucial role to play as active investors. Important campaigning bodies have certainly achieved some success in getting much more engagement from those investors, so that they can properly hold to account the decisions on pay.
	On the specifics of pay ratios, overall ratios certainly give us a picture of how things are across the economy, but I suggest a degree of caution about using a ratio between the top and the bottom for paid employees within a company. We considered that very carefully when we introduced the reforms. We decided not to
	mandate that ratio, as set out in the motion. Transparency is welcome, but we have to guard against potentially misleading information when that is broken down between the top and the bottom.
	Obviously, that will depend on what sector the company is operating in and the type of staff working for it. For example, a large investment bank that outsources all its unskilled work could end up having quite a low ratio for pay between the top and the bottom, but a large retailer with a large number of relatively unskilled employees would have a much bigger ratio. The retailer could none the less be paying above the living wage and treating its employees pretty well. It might look as though it is the investment bank that should be polishing its halo, but perhaps that is because it outsources its unskilled work to be done in less favourable conditions. Therefore, we have to be slightly careful about unintended consequences, because some factors could mask what is actually happening. Comparing top and median pay might give a more realistic and meaningful figure. The hon. Member for Hartlepool is right to point out the Liberal Democrat policy in that area—he is undoubtedly an avid reader of Liberal Democrat policy documents, as I encourage all hon. Members to be.
	The hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) raised a number of issues that are very important as part of the discussion on inequality and pay policy, particularly the pay gap for women. At the end of last week we heard the positive news that the pay gap is closing. However, we need to be cautious about celebrating that too much when we still have such a significant pay gap. Let us welcome the fact that it is being reduced, but also recognise that our aim has to be to eliminate it.
	The hon. Lady’s concerns about part-time work are also important. There is far too much stigma within the workplace about how valuable somebody can be if they work part time. Very important work is being done by organisations such as Timewise to highlight the fact that people in very senior roles can work part time and do their jobs perfectly successfully, so we should be able to deal with some of those issues.
	The hon. Lady also mentioned the living wage. We obviously have the national minimum wage, which is a floor, or a basic standard. Of course, this year we saw the first above-inflation rise in the national minimum wage since 2007, which is very welcome. That gives full-time workers a £355 increase each year. We want that to continue, if possible, without negatively impacting on employment. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has asked the Low Pay Commission to look at considering above-inflation rises in the national minimum wage, and we hope that, with a growing economy, that can be sustained. Of course, at the same time we have focused on helping people on low pay by cutting income tax by £800 a year, taking 3.2 million people on the national minimum wage out of paying income tax. We have done a significant amount, but we want to continue by encouraging employers to pay above the national minimum wage and to recognise that it is a minimum. Very profitable and successful companies should recognise their responsibilities to their employees, which might mean that they should be paying more. I welcome the fact that many employers are now turning into a positive the fact that they pay more than the minimum wage and
	badge themselves as a living wage employer. Of course, they will then be able better to compete for talented staff and get business benefits.
	The hon. Lady is right about happiness and well-being. In 2010, the Prime Minister said that the Office for National Statistics would be collecting data on well-being and happiness. That was not met with universal acclaim in some sections of the press. I seem to recall that the Daily Mail was not necessarily delighted by the suggestion. I, for one, was delighted, having set up the all-party group on well-being economics and long campaigned for the importance of recognising that people, yes, care about their income and the size of the economy, but also care about the health and happiness of themselves and their loved ones. The more we recognise that in our policy making and in what we measure, the better.
	The hon. Lady said that she did not know what had happened to that work, so I will update her. The ONS has been collecting the information, and about 250,000 people a year are questioned. As a result, a rich databank is being built up that can be broken down in interesting ways across different geographical areas, and between men and women and different age groups, so as to be able to assess the impact of policies and see what is happening in different parts of the country in different groups.
	We recently announced the setting up of a “what works centre”—a research think-tank that the Government are supporting to analyse how different policies impact on well-being. From a BIS perspective, one of the key strands of this work is about well-being in the labour market and the workplace and what drives it. We recently published research that we have undertaken on that. A range of factors impact on workplace well-being. Obviously, pay is one, but there are also things such as the variety in someone’s job, whether they feel that they get to use their skills, whether they have a degree of autonomy, how they go about their job, and their sense of fairness in the work place, which very much ties into this debate. I am glad to say that very many businesses are also engaged in this agenda and recognise that continuing to engage with the well-being of employees leads to better business performance.
	We recognise that this is a very significant issue, and we have taken action. We do not want to see rewards for failure. A ratio cap as set out in the motion could, in its purest sense, have unintended and perverse consequences. Early signs of the response to our executive pay reforms are encouraging, and we will review their impact and publish the findings. We will continue to work to ensure that pay policies become fairer, and also support low-paid workers by cutting income tax. I know that we will return to this topic in the House. I thank the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton and the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss it today.

Michael Meacher: This has inevitably been a rather short and truncated debate, but a useful one for all that. I think it fair to say that there is broad cross-party
	agreement that inequality is now out of control and further action needs to be taken. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) made the essential point that an increase in the ratio between top and bottom from 11:1 to 116:1, within one generation, cannot remotely be justified in terms of the performance of the British economy.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) for making important points about the raft of measures that are still necessary to deal with poverty, including tax credits to deal with in-work poverty; the continuing unfair span of gender inequality; the need for the Government to press the issue of the living wage—some companies are paying it but far too many still are not—and the need, above all, to shift away from a low-pay, low-skills and low-productivity economy to a high-pay, high-skills and high-productivity economy.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool for observing that the relationship between executive pay and company performance does not justify these excesses and cannot remotely do so, that the voice of workers needs to be directly involved in the determination of pay, and that we do not currently have a productive economy to the degree that we need and that is clearly possible both socially and economically.
	I am grateful to the Minister for her, as always, positive and bubbly tone, but I realise that she cannot go beyond her brief. I hope that if there is one lesson she will take to her right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, it is that he has to move from the action that he has already taken, which is valuable, to direct involvement of workers in executive pay. If we can get that message across, this debate has been worth it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Diana Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is reported in The Independent today that John Vine, the Government’s independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, has written to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee expressing concern that the Home Secretary has been intervening to delay and manipulate the publication of inconvenient reports on the Government’s immigration and asylum policy, and compromising the independence of his role. Given today’s news of the continuing mess that the Government’s immigration policy is in, have you, Madam Deputy Speaker, had any indication that the Home Secretary will be making a statement to the House on this matter?

Dawn Primarolo: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I have to say—I am sure she will be a bit disappointed—that today’s business is not a matter of order for me, and I have not received any such notification. However, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard her point, which is now on the record.

Historical Child Sex Abuse

[Relevant documents: Sixth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming: follow-up, HC 203; Oral evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee on 21 October and 11 November 2014, on historic child abuse, HC 710; Written evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, on historic child abuse, reported to the House on 21 October, 28 October and 11 November 2014, HC 710; Third Report from the Communities and Local Government Committee, Session 2014-15, on Child sexual exploitation in Rotherham: some issues for local government, HC 648.]

Dawn Primarolo: Before we move on to the next debate, let me say to the House that this is an important debate dealing with matters that have horrified Members in all parts of the House and people across the country. No doubt Members will wish to express those concerns in strong terms, but I must remind the House of two points. First, Members need to avoid reference to cases that are active before the courts. The sub judice resolution agreed by the House is designed to ensure that what is said in the House does not prejudice fair trials and, where merited, successful prosecutions. It is important that we respect that. In cases of doubt about the status of a case, I would advise Members to err on the side of caution.
	Secondly, even if the matters are not active before the courts, I would caution Members to think carefully about the impact of their words before making critical references to individuals. Freedom of speech is essential for the work of this House and to allow us to represent our constituents without fear of outside interference, but it is an obligation on all Members to exercise that privilege responsibly. I am sure that all Members taking part are fully aware of those two points, but I think that as we start this very important debate, we do well to remind ourselves of its context.

Simon Danczuk: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered progress of the historic child sex abuse inquiry.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving the subject of the historical child abuse inquiry so much prominence and time.
	I would like to celebrate the campaign of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, which has, first, given a voice to the voiceless; secondly, stimulated the media to act; thirdly, engaged many hon. Members in this place; fourthly, shone a light on a dirty secret and made child abuse more unacceptable than ever before; and fifthly, and probably most importantly, is now resulting in many perpetrators being arrested and dead perpetrators rightly being shamed.
	I think we can all agree that this subject is both diverse and full of detail, and it would not be difficult to speak for quite a long time. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me, because although I do not usually take up too much time in this place, on this occasion I would like some time to develop some important points. First and not least, I want to set out how we have got to where we are today; secondly, I want to talk about—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who is quite right about the time he usually takes, that the normal expectation for opening speeches in all Back-Bench debates is 15 to 20 minutes. That is a much longer than he usually speaks for, so I am sure he will be able to put his points very eloquently within that time.

Simon Danczuk: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Let me start with William’s story. I have changed his name to protect his identity. He is in his late 50s and his wife does not know that he was abused. He believes it would ruin his relationship if she found out. You could not wish to meet a more polite, intelligent and endearing gentleman. He does not look like a gentleman: he has tattoos, his face and skin are weathered, and he is quite dishevelled. William came to see me four months ago to tell me what had happened to him as a child. In 1970, he had been placed in Knowl View residential school in Rochdale, a place for youngsters with behavioural problems. The initial ethos was caring and supportive: the hitting of children was frowned upon and children were to be listened to.
	As William pointed out to me, that ethos did not last very long. Within weeks of him arriving, he was being abused, both by teachers and by fellow pupils. Physical and sexual abuse was meted out on a daily basis. From the age of 13, he was bullied and abused, both physically and sexually. Sobbing, he explained to me how he was pleased when a younger boy who was more attractive was placed in the school, because that child became the focus of attention. One day, Cyril Smith tried it on with him, but one of the good teachers saved him. Obviously, at the time, William did not know that Smith was part of a paedophile network operating at the school. It was just one of the networks to which Smith would belong in his long paedophilic career.
	William eventually escaped by running away and he has spent the rest of his life working on fairgrounds, an articulate, smart lad whose life chances were limited by his abusers. Needless to say, he is sad and wants justice. Only time will tell whether Greater Manchester Police will deliver that for him.
	Let me turn to John, who came to my office a few months ago. He suffered a similar fate at Knowl View school. He attacked one of his abusers and ended up going to prison. Years later, he sat in my office seeking help to find accommodation because he was homeless. Abuse had destroyed John’s life.
	It is for those people—William and John—that we are here today. They are the survivors. As children, they suffered horrendous abuse. Now, as adults, they are determined to share their stories and bring the abusers to justice.
	That desire to get to the truth about child abuse, however, has not been universally shared. We now know that from at least the 1970s up to the present day, there have been not only people in positions of power who have sexually abused children, but powerful people willing to cover up that abuse and obstruct justice. People were more concerned about their own careers and protecting the system than they were about the lives that were being shattered. From the systematic abuse by Jimmy Savile, which has been well documented, to the continual abuse committed by Cyril Smith, which Matt Baker and
	I have detailed, it is clear that there was a culture of acceptance of child sex abuse by the powerful and well-connected.
	Amazingly, that attitude seems to have been well known at the time. Indeed, I was recently shown an episode of “Spitting Image” that was produced and aired in June 1987. The sketch mocks Conservative youth unemployment policy by joking that the Government had been very good at
	“getting to grips with youngsters”
	through their “rent boy scheme” The joke was on the Conservative policy, but it was also on the boys who were raped and abused by politicians.
	In addition, we have seen the shocking spectacle of a former Whip, Tim Fortescue, openly telling the BBC that the Whips in the 1970s would help MPs to cover up scandals, including incidents with small boys. It seems that the culture of child abuse around politics was an open secret, yet nothing was done and children continued to be abused.
	This problem was not confined just to politics and broadcasters. There are many instances, which I and others have documented, of the police ignoring child sex abuse. Let us not forget that this is the agency charged with keeping children safe, yet there was systematic ignorance by the police of the abuse that was going on.
	During my own investigation, Cyril Smith was found to be the subject of multiple police investigations, all of which were dropped. There are many examples of retired police officers offering powerful testimony to me and my staff about past investigations of child abuse. They were shut down once it was apparent that high-profile politicians and other establishment figures were involved. They include Operation Circus, which focused on what was known as the Piccadilly Circus “meat rack”, where men would pick up adolescent boys for sex. Cyril Smith was among the powerful politicians spotted here taking boys back to a flat in north London. Questions must be asked about why those investigations did not continue.
	Last Sunday, events took an even more sinister turn and there were allegations that sexually abused children had been murdered and that they involved people with a connection to this House. As shocking as those claims are, I am wholly convinced that we should take them seriously. When responding to the Wanless and Whittam review of missing files at the Home Office, the Prime Minister described those who believed in child abuse cover-ups as “conspiracy theorists”. My view is that those comments were extremely insensitive and I think he will regret them in the months and years ahead. I have to admit that some of the claims that sometimes surround child abuse in that period can seem extreme, but from what I have seen and heard it is not hard to conclude that there was a paedophile network at Westminster during that period. The network organised child abuse and conspired to protect each of its members from exposure. Cyril Smith was certainly a part of it.
	Earlier this year, I told the Home Affairs Committee that a dossier containing allegations about child abuse by politicians had been handed by Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens to the then Home Secretary Leon Brittan. That revelation helped lead to the Wanless and Whittam review and to the establishment of the overarching inquiry, but not everybody was pleased with the idea that I might challenge Lord Brittan. The night before
	my appearance before the Committee, I had an encounter with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). After the 10 pm vote, he drew me to one side outside the Chamber and warned me to think very carefully about what I was going to say the following day. He told me that challenging Lord Brittan on child abuse would not be a wise move and that I might even be responsible for his death, as he was unwell.
	I understand that people are cautious about naming parliamentarians, but I think that people who might know about child abuse allegations should answer questions, whatever their position. We should not shy away from that.
	I move on to the inquiry itself. It is fair to say that we are in a bit of a mess. First of all, I want to make it clear that I do not necessarily blame the Government or, indeed, the Home Office, but it is clear that mistakes have been made. What the Home Office permanent secretary told the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday is quite revealing. He said that the Home Office had not appreciated the emotional nature of the inquiry when setting it up and appointing the chair. I was pleased to hear the permanent secretary say that this is now one of the top three priorities for the Home Office.
	I do not want to dwell too long on false starts and the progress that still needs to be made. Too much time has been lost already. On the chair, however, I understand that the Home Office is now considering 100 names. Clearly, the process will not be quick and I do not think it should be rushed, but we need to get the right person in place. To do that, it is clear that we need more scrutiny and transparency of the appointment process. I am still confused and disturbed by the role of the Home Office in drafting the letter from Fiona Woolf to the Home Secretary. On the new chairperson, it is important for the Home Office not to have any involvement in any letter to or agreement with the Home Secretary—it should stay well out of it.
	It is now clear that we cannot have another chair with significant links to people who might be investigated in the course of this inquiry. I am pleased that the permanent secretary has said that they are looking “further afield” and considering people from outside a narrow Westminster circle.
	The other thing that is clear is that there needs to be a much greater role for survivors. I started my speech with two stories about survivors, to remind the House that this inquiry should always be focused on them. I am sure that meeting groups and representatives will redouble the Home Secretary’s efforts to make sure that the inquiry gets to the truth. It is not enough, however, simply to meet survivors—the Home Office needs to listen to them, too. For example, I understand that at a recent meeting with the Home Secretary, there was a vote on whether the inquiry should be a statutory one. I am given to understand that the vote was unanimously in favour. May I ask the Minister whether these views are really being taken on board?

William Cash: On the question of having a statutory inquiry, I take it that the hon. Gentleman means an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. We had considerable experience of trying to get such an inquiry on Mid Staffordshire: I had to campaign almost unimaginably hard to get one under the 2005 Act.
	The reason for having one is simply that evidence can be given on oath and there can be a proper inquiry; anything less would simply not be adequate. Indeed, the Attorney-General will need in some way to be brought in to ensure that the very important people who might be involved in all the investigations are aware that the inquiry is being undertaken at that level.

Simon Danczuk: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his valuable intervention, which should inform the inquiry and its work.
	I know that the new chair of the inquiry, when eventually appointed, will have some scope to alter the terms of reference. It is especially important to concentrate on the geographical scope. If I have learned one thing from studying child abuse networks, it is that there are lots of connections that are difficult to spot or to understand. I am worried that drawing arbitrary boundaries that stop us from looking at Scotland and Northern Ireland might prevent some connections from being made and some lessons from being learned. In Northern Ireland, I am particularly thinking of Kincora boys’ home and the alleged involvement of the security services. I want the new chair to consider the geography of the terms of reference.

Ian Lucas: One of my concerns is that I am confused about the relationship between the new inquiry that my hon. Friend is speaking about and the inquiries currently under way, such as the Macur review of the Waterhouse inquiry. Can my hon. Friend enlighten me about that relationship?

Simon Danczuk: The short answer is no, because the terms of reference are very brief and not very detailed. We need to be given more of an understanding about that relationship. The idea is for the inquiry to bring all such investigations together, but we still need to be told how that will work in practice.

Tim Loughton: On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), surely the point is that we are talking about an overarching inquiry—it is not a prosecution, or an investigation into criminal activities to bring somebody to justice now—whereas the other inquiries, reviews and investigations that are going on might just deliver that, but will do so in parallel to this inquiry. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Simon Danczuk: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which has shone some light on the questions that need to be answered.
	For every person who commits child abuse, very many people are complicit in that abuse or know information that could help, and it is absolutely vital that those people—they could be civil servants, cab drivers or even neighbours—come forward. More significantly, a large number of police officers, both retired and serving, have information to give. We simply need to get the full picture, and to get those people to speak at the inquiry. The Home Secretary must ensure
	that there is a full amnesty for any officer, so that they are not worried about the Official Secrets Act or their pensions.
	We must make sure that we create the best possible conditions in which survivors can come forward and speak to the inquiry. I know how hard that will be for many of them. I have spoken to many survivors who have been silent for decades, and they are struggling to come to terms with what happened to them. That can be a hugely painful and traumatic experience. We need to provide full support and access to therapies that might be required by those people. We have failed them once, and we must not do so again.

Julian Smith: I apologise for not being in the Chamber for the start of the hon. Gentleman’s speech.
	On the issue of support, what is the hon. Gentleman’s view of the financial implications of what he is saying? It seems to me that there is a need for money to support counselling services across this whole area. Will he say what money might be needed for the survivors in relation to the inquiry?

Simon Danczuk: I have made no calculation of what the cost might be of therapies or support for the survivors, but it is minuscule in comparison with the damage done to them. I have no doubt that the Home Office will consider the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
	Another group of people should come forward to the inquiry—the perpetrators of child abuse. To those people, I would say: “I urge you to think about the people you have abused, and to think about your victims. Damaged as children, they continue to suffer now, well into their adult lives. You have inflicted untold misery on them and their families. In many cases, what you did has made it impossible for them to live normal lives. Now they must suffer again by coming forward and speaking about what you did to them. They will have tried desperately to bury the memories of abuse, but they will now have to drag them back into the light. They will have to relive that trauma. But you can spare them some of that suffering. You can come forward and admit you guilt. If you admit what you have done, some of that pain can be saved, and some people can begin to rebuild their lives. So I say again: as a perpetrator of these crimes, you must come forward to the inquiry and take responsibility for what you have done. You can never undo the wrong, but you can at least prevent further agony.”
	So far, my speech has focused on the historical aspects of child abuse, but the grim reality is that child abuse is a fact of life for hundreds of children in modern Britain. In places such as Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford and Telford, children are still being abused. This is not a thing of the past; this is happening to our children in our towns now.
	We know from the Jay report on Rotherham that there were more than 1,400 victims over a six-year period in just one town. The Communities and Local Government Committee, on which I sit, conducted an inquiry into Rotherham, and our findings were worrying. The same failures and bad practices that allowed children to be abused in Rotherham are common across local government areas. Rotherham is simply the tip of the
	iceberg. We are yet to discover the true horrific extent of child abuse in this country. When it is revealed, nobody will be in any doubt that this is one of the most appalling crimes of our times.
	In these circumstances, it is vital that the police get to grips with the issue and that resources are made available to solve abuse cases and catch the abusers. I am not convinced that that is happening. I have spoken to serving Met police officers, and they have described in graphic detail abuse crimes that are being committed, but are being ignored. I have the same concerns with regard to Greater Manchester police, my local force.
	Victims have been ignored by the police because they were poor, white, working-class kids. Police and social workers have insulted them and left them to be abused. The survivors—often as young as 11—were accused of making lifestyle choices. The attitude in one agency was so warped that when an abuser got a young victim pregnant for the second time, the social worker insisted that the rapist, who was married with a family of his own, should attend the antenatal classes. I am still struggling to believe that such a culture could exist in our public services. As a result of that culture, the police failed to arrest rapists, who moved on to new victims year in, year out, and the perpetrators’ confidence was bolstered so that they thought they were untouchable.
	My own town of Rochdale has also suffered from this crime. Not only did Cyril Smith and others abuse children in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, but we had the Rochdale grooming scandal just a few years ago. It does not stop there. Yesterday, eight men were arrested across Rochdale, Oldham and Manchester, accused of grooming three children—one was 15, and two were just 13—in our town. I am glad that the police are acting and making arrests, but it is shocking that after all the town has been through, people are still out there trying to sexually abuse children on our streets. In this case, the abuse is alleged to have occurred between September and October this year, so the accusation is that at the very time we were all learning about the horrendous abuse in Rotherham, these men were still brazenly continuing their abuse. It is just sickening.
	Before I bring my remarks to a close, I want to reflect for a moment on the consequences of child abuse. It is a difficult and distressing subject. I know that it is all too easy to turn away from the distasteful headlines and harrowing stories, and to think that it is something that will never touch us. We think that this kind of abuse could never happen in our town or to anyone we know, but it affects all of us. Child abuse ruins lives, strips people of their dignity and is creating a growing underclass of people who have been abused.
	We must think about the consequences of child rape: it sets people back in school and damages their life chances; it pushes people to the margins of society, where they often end up involved in crime and drugs, putting pressure on the police and other agencies; and it leaves people with terrible physical problems, often preventing them from having children of their own. It is a crime that stores up all sorts of problems that are felt across society. Like all violent, senseless crimes, its consequences are felt long after the crime is committed. The psychological damage that it causes to survivors is impossible to overestimate.
	With that in mind, and considering the hurdles that we must cross to get the inquiry moving, I am hopeful that the whole House will unite and renew its efforts to bring justice to the victims of child abuse. The survivors are crying out to be heard. It is time we started listening.

Tim Loughton: I am delighted that we are having this debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) for helping to bring it about. He was one of the gang of seven who went to see the Home Secretary initially to impress upon her the need to have an overarching inquiry, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who are in the Chamber today.
	This is a hugely important subject. As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, the permanent secretary at the Home Office agreed at the Home Affairs Committee this week that it is one of the top three priorities of the Home Office. All of us in this Chamber and our colleagues beyond have constituents who have been the victims and who are the survivors of child sexual abuse that goes back many years. People from my patch have certainly contacted me. Those of us who were at the vanguard of the call for the inquiry have received many harrowing tales from survivors up and down the country.
	It is useful briefly to remind ourselves of why the inquiry is so essential. Over the past two and a quarter years, since that extraordinary ITV programme in October 2012 that started to unpeel the horrific, systematic, serial child abuse by one Jimmy Savile, the whole situation has changed and the floodgates have opened. A string of celebrities followed on from Jimmy Savile, including Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris. Investigations have been renewed, reviewed and re-uncovered with Operation Pallial on care homes, Operation Fairbank and Operation Fernbridge. There have been inquiries involving schools, such as Operation Flamborough, which is investigating alleged assaults on girls with learning difficulties at a Hampshire boarding school, and the investigations into Fort Augustus Abbey school, Carlkemp school, Kesgrave Hall school and Chetham’s school of music, where there were a series of abuses by music tutors who had the opportunity, when teaching on a one-to-one basis, to take advantage of vulnerable children.
	Of course, there was the tragic suicide of Frances Andrade when all that was uncovered. We have heard about the historical abuse in our religious institutions. There have been criminal investigations into the Catholic Church, including in my diocese of Chichester, where people have ended up in jail and where other investigations are ongoing. There has been Operation Retriever and the more recent child sexual exploitation by Asian gangs and others in Rochdale and Rotherham. We have had Operation Bullfinch and Operation Chalice. It goes on and on.
	We must remember that this matter has more recently, not least through the hard work of the hon. Member for Rochdale, started knocking on the door of politics and Westminster. We must not be afraid of that.

Julian Smith: My hon. Friend might be coming to this point, but does he agree that it is vital that we leave no stone unturned in getting to the bottom of what has
	happened in this place? It has to be an absolute priority for the inquiry to find out what has happened and, potentially, what is happening in the corridors of power.

Tim Loughton: That is entirely the point that the hon. Member for Rochdale made. It is not in the interests of any one of us who is in politics or in Parliament to stand by while suspicions and allegations of child sexual abuse involving politicians, dead or alive, are ignored. We need to root out this cancer. A child sexual abuser who happens to have been a politician is no less of a vile criminal than Jimmy Savile, a rogue priest or any other subject of the overarching inquiry. Those who think that we would want to cover up the involvement of other politicians in this abuse need to understand that this cancer tarnishes all of us and needs to be cut out. We have more incentive than many to ensure that we leave no stone unturned, however uncomfortable the findings may be.

William Cash: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) for their persistence in this matter. It is a remarkable example of how results can come from determination. He might be interested to know that it was Jim Callaghan who, as Prime Minister, insisted that the Protection of Children Bill reached its Report stage, against the background of considerable covert opposition. I was involved in that Bill in 1977 on behalf of the former Member of Parliament, the late Cyril Townsend. Jim Callaghan told me that his wife had said that if he did not get the Bill through as Prime Minister, she would not speak to him for six months.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes a good point and one that I have heard him make before. He is a veteran of taking an interest in this issue and ensuring that a spotlight is placed on these horrendous crimes. That was more difficult back in the ’70s and ’80s, when there was what I call the “Oh, it’s only Jimmy” mentality. What we now recognise as vile crimes against vulnerable children were swept under the carpet. It was assumed that that was just what went on and people did not want to rock the boat, for all sorts of reasons. It was harder for people to stand up and point the finger in the ’70s and ’80s than it is now. We should pay tribute to those people who, under whatever duress, brought such matters into the open.
	It would have been better and easier if the overarching inquiry had started two years ago. Some of us wrote to the Prime Minister soon after the Savile revelations broke to say, “This is going to be really important. This is going to lead to a serious undermining of confidence in the child protection system in this country, and all sorts of allegations about cover-ups will start to come out.” The floodgates had been opened. The only compensation of the Savile case is that it raised the profile of child sexual abuse and emboldened victims to come forward who for years and decades had been told to go away and forget about it, and had been treated almost as the perpetrators, as the hon. Member for Rochdale said, rather than the victims that they were or the survivors that they are. If the inquiry had got under way before the floodgates opened, I think there would
	be more trust that the Government and politicians were taking a lead and wanted to uncover it all, but alas that did not happen.
	I pay tribute to the Home Secretary who stuck her head above the parapet and agreed to hold the overarching inquiry that we called for in July, appreciating—almost uniquely—just how important and necessary it was. No less than any of the gang of seven and the rest of us who are interested in this issue, she wants to get to the truth and leave no stone unturned. She wants justice to be done for the survivors and to ensure a child protection system that is fit for purpose in 2014.
	However, there has been an unfortunate train of events. Elizabeth Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf were both excellent candidates to chair such a high-profile inquiry, but circumstances conspired for them to lose credibility in the eyes of survivors. In many respects, one could not win. Elizabeth Butler-Sloss has huge experience in child abuse inquiries and the family courts. She had a connection with a Government Minister—her brother—back in the 1980s, and decided that that would overshadow the great experience that she could have brought to the inquiry. I think that was unfortunate. Fiona Woolf had no connections with the family courts and seemed to have no baggage or agenda, but, alas, she too was not able to carry the inquiry forward. We should not see that as a deliberate intention to try to undermine or rig the inquiry; they were two, honourable heavyweight candidates, but unfortunately, because of the delicacy and sensitivity of this issue, they were not able to continue.
	It is vital to get on with the inquiry and, as the Home Secretary announced, in the absence of a chair the panel must get the work under way. We heard from the permanent secretary at the Home Office that a new candidate is unlikely to come forward until the new year, and the Home Affairs Committee, on which I serve, will be asked to give them a confirmatory hearing. That person—or perhaps persons, as we may need dual chairs—must be allowed to get on with the job. If they cannot, the inquiry will never happen, and we must hold this inquiry.
	This overarching inquiry is important for three reasons. First, we must put into historical context exactly how such things were allowed to happen, and learn when things changed and improved. Children are much safer in 2014 than they were in 1964, ’74 or ’84. Did the advent of the Children Act 1989 or the shocking high-profile revelations about the north Wales care homes in the 1990s make society take child abuse more seriously? We must put into context all those different things, which are confusing people with almost weekly revelations of new historical child sex abuse inquiries.
	Secondly, the inquiry is necessary to give the survivors a voice at last, ensure that they are listened to, and discover whether the perpetrators are still out there—we know that abuse is still going on, hopefully in a lesser form than it was previously. After decades of not being listened to, people still feel raw. I have met many survivors, and the Home Affairs Committee held a private meeting with survivors who are palpably still traumatised by experiences many decades ago. Survivors must be listened to and feel that they are being listened to, and they must be able to achieve some sort of closure at long last.
	The third reason the inquiry must get on with its work is that we must consider whether all major institutions in this country that have significant dealings with children and young people have instituted child protection policies and practices that are fit for purpose in 2014 to deal with modern-day perpetrators of abuse. Rotherham was the tip of the iceberg; there will be more Rotherhams I am afraid, and unless we have assurances and can restore confidence in the public that child protection systems in this country are fit for purpose, people will continue to be worried on behalf of their own children and friends. The inquiry will be vast. Its nature means that it will have to go anywhere and everywhere it needs to go, and it may take many years. That is the nature of the beast that we are dealing with, and it is a beast indeed.

Paul Beresford: May I add a fourth reason? There is now confidence among many victims who want to come out and talk about their experiences but not to the inquiry—they have gone to the police. The Met police, particularly the Sapphire unit, is working closely with victims who would not have come forward if it were not for this inquiry.

Tim Loughton: That is right. We must recognise the enormous pressure that the police services are under to look into historical cases of abuse. Many victims, quite rightly, have bravely been emboldened to come forward, having sat on the issue and been repulsed over many years. I realise that a huge amount of distrust and scepticism from survivors surrounds the inquiry, and I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that it is not helpful simply to write them off as conspiracy theories. During my time as children’s Minister, and subsequently, I met many survivors. They are very raw and there are great sensitivities. It is also difficult to determine who speaks for what is inevitably a disparate group. Some say they would like a judge to head the inquiry. Some say that a judge is the last person they would want. Some say they would prefer to wait a further two, three or six years to get the inquiry right before we start it. Others say we need it now because we need closure now. We must also not forget that there are current victims who need to be helped by the implications of an overarching inquiry.
	There are conspiracy theories coming from a very different direction. I received a letter—I should think other hon. Members received it as well:
	“I am not one of your constituents. Until last Friday I was only very dimly aware of your existence as an MP, but last Friday evening you appeared on ‘The World Tonight’ and ‘Newsnight’ to discuss the resignation of Fiona Woolf. In both programmes, you repeated allegations about the late Jimmy Savile which you appear not to have verified or investigated in any way.”
	There are people standing up for Jimmy Savile, saying that he has been misrepresented in some way. There are extraordinary theories going around, which is why we need an inquiry to get to the truth.
	In conclusion, what action should be taken going forward? The whole inquiry could have been handled better. The survivors should have been consulted earlier, before the processes and structures were set up, but we are where we are and we need to move forward and get the inquiry going.
	First, we need to get on with appointing a chair, or possibly dual chairs. There will be circumstances where certain people being investigated as part of the overarching inquiry will be known to a chair. It is impossible, frankly, to get somebody with the calibre to chair such an inquiry who has no knowledge of all sorts of people who may have been on the periphery. If that does happen, perhaps they could step aside temporarily and an alternative chair could come in for the part of the investigation which involved somebody with whom they may have had a connection. We must remember, however, that these are not trials of criminals now. This is an overarching inquiry and it is for other police investigations to nail down perpetrators and bring charges.
	Secondly, I have got to the stage where I believe the inquiry needs to be chaired by a judge, or judges. Many judges have turned down the invitation, which is not surprising. It is a poisoned chalice. We may have to go overseas to find somebody who does not have connections and baggage. It will perhaps be difficult to find somebody with the knowledge of the way the systems have worked in this country to lead the inquiry, but this is not the Oscar Pistorius trial. This is not a one man or one woman show; it is a panel of experts which includes, at the behest of many of us who went to see the Home Secretary, the survivors. The survivors should be represented at the heart of the panel to ensure that their perspective is included.
	Thirdly, it is possible that the inquiry will have to become statutory. The Home Secretary has, perfectly reasonably, cited the Hillsborough inquiry as a very good example of an inquiry where everybody—bar one, I think—came forward with the information required of them. She has promised full co-operation from all Government agencies and Departments including, I would hope, the intelligence services, but we have got to the stage where the inquiry may need to be put on a statutory basis.

William Cash: The Hillsborough inquiry was about a dreadful event. This is much more widespread: it goes deeper and involves criminal issues. I entirely agree with the direction my hon. Friend is taking. I am absolutely certain, from all my experience as shadow Attorney-General and in my previous incarnation as a lawyer in these fields, that it is absolutely essential not only to have an Inquiries Act 2005 inquiry but to have it led by a judge who can evaluate all the circumstances.

Tim Loughton: I feared my hon. Friend was about to say that Hillsborough was a terrible inquiry. No, it was a good inquiry about a terrible event and I think he is probably right. This is a huge, many-headed hydra that will go into many Departments and include documents and information from the intelligence services and others.
	Fourthly, we must recognise that we have a good panel of experts. Questions have been asked about the way certain members of the panel were appointed. That was up to the Home Secretary, with advice from her officials. The gang of seven and others were invited to make any suggestions helpfully. I made some suggestions. Some of the people I suggested had been recommended by other institutions. Some of the people I suggested have not made it on to the panel. Some people think that, because they have been suggested by MPs, they must therefore be tainted. Please recognise that we have
	a good panel of experts from a wide variety of disciplines who bring great skills to the panel. To think that any one of them, let alone the eventual chair or chairs, could in any way, in such a high-profile inquiry with such a spotlight shining on them, sweep something under the carpet or try to divert the inquiry’s deliberations is just not realistic.

Diana Johnson: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the panel members, but it would have been better had survivors, representatives and groups at least been consulted on the members before they were announced. That they were not has caused undue suspicion among some survivors. I am sure he thinks it would have been a better way of putting the panel together.

Tim Loughton: I actually said that just now. It should have been handled better, but we are where we are.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that the terms of reference, particularly for whistleblowers, need to be reviewed. We do not want people, be they police officers or others, not coming forward to help uncover the truth because of a fear of procedures. I am not a supporter of mandatory reporting, but we need a system of whistleblowing that is fit for purpose and does not get in the way of the truth in this inquiry.
	The chair and the panel need to be completely transparent, accountable and accessible. I recommend we have a sounding board panel of survivors who are consulted not just at the beginning—it should have happened earlier—but as the inquiry progresses so they can give their input on whether the inquiry is getting under the right stones, going in the right direction and being rigorous enough. They need to be part of that process all the way through.
	As I said earlier, Parliament should have no fear if the inquiry encroaches on our own sort, and it does not help any party or politician to be party to a cover-up. We need to ensure, and all the survivors need to trust, that we have a shared agenda and aim to which many of us are wedded: to root out criminals; to uncover the truth, however unpalatable; to give survivors a voice; and to ensure that the system in 2014 is working to keep our children and young people safe.
	Survivors need help and counselling. I have met survivors who have had to set up charities to give counselling and advice to other survivors and who are doing it on a shoestring. Organisations such as the National Association for People Abused in Childhood have done excellent work but are now being overwhelmed. There is a huge demand for counselling services from survivors having to relive a trauma they thought had gone away, and there have even been suicides by former survivors since this was uncovered. We have to do more on that score.
	Finally, however, there are grounds for optimism. Notwithstanding Rotherham and the fact that there will be more Rotherhams, our awareness of child exploitation is higher than ever. The child sexual exploitation action plan, which I launched as children’s Minister in November 2011, is the thing of which I am most proud from my time at the Department. It has brought about a sea change in the way we recognise, intervene on and
	tackle child sexual exploitation, and has brought together the police and social, education and health workers through local safeguarding children boards—they are not good enough, as the Ofsted recently showed, but we are going in the right direction—and ensured that taxi firms and hotels have a means of sharing information if gang abuse is happening on their premises or in their taxis.
	Furthermore, we now have an Archbishop of Canterbury who takes this issue so seriously that he will not consecrate any new bishop until they have gone through a child sexual exploitation training course, and clergy and volunteers throughout the Church of England and—I am sure—other Churches are being brought up to speed. We have also seen changes in court procedures meaning that victims are more confident about coming to court and can give evidence in greater safety, without being intimidated by barristers, and that more perpetrators are going to jail. We owe it to the survivors and to vulnerable children and young people now to get this overarching inquiry under way; to make its investigations robust; and to ensure that its findings stick. We must do that if we are to restore confidence in the child protection system we so desperately need.

Paul Beresford: We have heard two interesting speeches, one of them particularly emotional, which is understandable. Anyone who has worked, as I have, for some considerable time in this area will have great difficulty not getting emotional about it. One needs only to hear the stories.
	The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) appeared to start from the 1970s, so I would refer him to a period before that. A film appeared on BBC2—it is still available—called “Hunting Britain’s Paedophiles”. It was produced by a man called Bob Long, who followed the Metropolitan police paedophile unit, tracking a gang that had run its own institution of dance studios and the like since 1959. Members of that gang were finally put away earlier this century. They used manuals and induced the kids, and the number of children involved over 40 or 50 years would have been vast. However, that was the start of a real rethink, resulting in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which brought grooming into the picture. At that stage, and still to a degree, this country was ahead of anywhere else in the world on that particular aspect of dealing with this problem.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was involved in that as a Minister, and many of us worked in the background. He talked about the high-profile cases. I am bothered that in concentrating on those cases, we may be missing thousands—and there will be thousands—of children elsewhere who have been abused over many years by gangs. We have got to be broad, and the advantage of dealing with the high-profile cases is that it makes it absolutely sure that it will appear in the media and in people’s minds, which has a positive effect.
	Coming right back to the title of today’s debate, I find it interesting that so soon after the commencement of this historic child sex abuse inquiry, today’s debate is looking at progress. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary bravely anticipates an initial report before Christmas. In addition, the Home Office says that it does not expect a full report before the next election.
	It is worth looking at the Northern Ireland Assembly, which set up a similar inquiry into child sexual abuse in Northern Ireland institutions. The population of Northern Ireland is much less than here, the number of institutions is much smaller and the terms of reference much narrower—perhaps, after recent accusations, too narrow. The inquiry commenced in January 2012. I have not followed its progress carefully but I understand that the first part, interviewing witnesses behind closed doors, will be complete by Christmas. Educated guesses are that the report for this much smaller inquiry will come out in 2016, 2017 or later.
	We need to decide whether we want a speedy inquiry that comes forward with possibly predictable things that we already have and with no depth, or exactly the opposite, in which case the inquiry will go on for years. Our inquiry is much broader, potentially involving vast numbers of institutions and others. Many of these will wish to hide, and are capable of hiding, past sexual abuse. We will not catch them all; we will not get to the bottom of it all; but we might get enough from those we look at to bring about some dramatic changes to build on what has already happened.
	I first became interested in legislation relating to protecting children from abuse and enabling the better prosecution of abusers, particularly child sex abusers, many years ago. My interest resulted from the shock of a day spent with the Metropolitan police paedophile unit, which would completely shake anyone, unless they had the tendencies. At that time, it was the leading unit in the country and probably still is, alongside the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. CEOP and the Met unit work in the same area of protection, but act differently: one can arrest, the other cannot.
	At the time, the head of the Met unit was DCI Bob McLachlan—a very tough character. His unit was small, especially in comparison with the current Met unit, but it had a much broader geographical link, look and vista, including overseas, than one would expect for a Met unit.
	Years ago, I asked Bob McLachlan how many active paedophiles he and his team thought there were in this country. He said that, in about the year 2000, he and his team had undertaken an exercise on just that subject, and had estimated that there were 230,000 active paedophiles—enough, he said, for there to be one in every street in the country. He also said that 20% of those paedophiles were women, and that half of them—that is, 10%—were women who actively took part in the abuse, sometimes of their own accord rather than being goaded. In those days it was hard to prosecute female abusers because juries would not believe that females were capable of abuse, but cases that have arisen over the last few years have proved that they are. Predominantly, they seem to act in institutions, but we should be very aware that that is not always the case. Given the huge progress of the internet and the “dark web”, there must have been a large increase in the number of paedophiles since 2000. Bob’s figure of 230,000 was a guesstimate.

Zac Goldsmith: My hon. Friend is making a fascinating but also very depressing speech. Does he share my concern about sentencing? A high-profile figure in my community was found in possession of 50,000 of the most extreme images imaginable. He went to jail, but came out after nine months, and
	received no rehabilitation of any sort. It is inconceivable that he does not now pose a threat to children in my community, and there are probably 200 or 300 people like him on my patch alone.

Paul Beresford: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Law Officers in the present Government have chased many of these individuals, and they have a list. However, what we need is an inquiry—conducted by the Attorney-General rather than the Home Office—into the sentences imposed, compared with those that are available.
	My hon. Friend spoke of 50,000 indecent images. Judging by many cases that I have looked into, 50,000 is a drop in the ocean. Some of these individuals have hundreds of thousands of images, which may run into the millions. What they do with them is beyond me, but they have them, and we have changed the law so that we can now have access to them. They may not be accessible because they have been encrypted, but another recent change in the law, which I initiated, means that these individuals can be sent to jail for failing to allow the encryption to be broken.
	I did not ask Bob, the policeman, for a definition of “paedophile”. Perhaps I should have, because there are various definitions. For the purposes of the inquiry, it needs to be recognised that the vast majority of child abuse, and child sex abuse, happens in families—including extended families—and not in institutions. The inquiry should not forget, and we should not forget, that there is more going on outside institutions than inside them. Having said that, however, I should add that, historically as well as today, predatory paedophiles—both male and female—can and do use institutions in which they are in a position of trust as their field of operations.

Julian Smith: I do not know whether my hon. Friend saw a Channel 4 documentary entitled “The Paedophile Hunter” earlier this week. It raised some quite concerning issues relating to how we as a country have dealt with paedophiles, and referred to academic research which suggested that we should be doing more of what is being done in Germany—helping paedophiles who want to come forward and be given counselling to do so. What conclusions has my hon. Friend reached about the validity of such work?

Paul Beresford: There was a similar programme on Channel 4 about paedophiles as neighbours. The individual in the Channel 4 programme went to Germany, but he did not need to do so. The facilities are available in this country, and have been for a considerable time. They are used in the Prison Service, for instance, and in a world-famous organisation called the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. The system works rather like Alcoholics Anonymous, and the success rate is very high. The problem with the success rate is the cherry-picking, but that does not bother me. If such organisations catch these individuals early enough and stop them, they are being proactive, and that is what we really want.
	On occasion, Bob McLachlan would catch these individuals before they did anything and say, “Lad, go and get treatment. If you don’t go and get treatment, I’ll take you to court. If I catch you a second time, you’re going to court.” I have drifted a little way from what I was saying.
	In debates such as today’s, Members may be tempted—we have had a bit of this—to add to the inquiry. My only addition relates to the members of the team. It does not have, as the Northern Ireland one does, a highly experienced and recently retired police officer expert in this area. No one on that team has actually looked for these people, arrested them, talked to the victims as part of the campaign and the whole programme. I hope that the Home Office will think about that.
	The Northern Ireland inquiry was wise enough to take on an expert who served for many years with the Met police. He is a very recently retired Met DCI who is renowned for his success not only in catching and convicting offenders but in caring for and helping victims, introducing new systems—for example, face recognition—at the Met to find victims. The fact that his nickname in the police is Postman Pat indicates how he is able to approach both victims and offenders so successfully. I do not know how he does it. He interviews victims and they warm to him. He interviews the paedophiles and they warm to him until he reaches the point where he has to leave the room because he feels absolutely disgusted. I can say that now because he is no longer doing it.
	I hope we recognise that if we have a decent report on the issue it will probably resemble the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” in volume. I also suspect that the inquiry will report in 2016 if we are lucky, 2017 possibly, but probably even later if it is to be of real value. The inquiry team has a vital role in listening to victims and unearthing currently hidden activities in institutions, as set out in the terms of reference. Merely listening to victims will enable help to be provided to them, as well as potential lines of investigation to be passed to the police. As I said earlier, people will be encouraged to go to the police of their own accord. However, we must recognise that over the past 10 to 12 years there have been huge changes in the protection of children. There have been massive changes in legislation, which I am proud to say I have had a subtle, low-profile hand in putting through. There have been massive changes in attitude and public awareness, and the number of officials, especially police, in this field has gone up enormously. CEOP has been set up, and I believe that all police forces now have paedophile units. They did not 20 years ago. The Met and Birmingham units were the only ones. The Met unit is probably more than 10 times the strength it was when I visited it on that first day of shock. In addition, the Met have their Jigsaw team throughout London, actively monitoring those on the offenders list.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) mentioned the individual who came out of prison after nine months. It is not finished for him. He will be being watched by the Jigsaw team. We can guarantee that the moment he steps out of line he will be back there.
	It is probable that the inquiry will rehash lessons we have already learnt but, probably more usefully—my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) touched on this—it will show where we have the legislation and experience and we are not using it.

Zac Goldsmith: I am sorry to interrupt—I will make a speech shortly—but I have spoken to members of the Jigsaw team in my patch and other areas. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is monitoring afterwards, but talk to any member confidentially and they will say that they are not satisfied with the current regime. They feel that they have an impossible task because of the sheer number of people they have to monitor. There are incidents all the time relating to people who are supposed to be monitored by Jigsaw teams. A tiny number of police officers are monitoring a vast number of very dangerous people. It is not a satisfactory situation at all.

Paul Beresford: I completely agree. I have talked to some of the Jigsaw team, too. It is putting together a programme of suggestions that it will bring to the Home Office. Perhaps my hon. Friend can join me and we can use my subtle-ish methods of sliding legislative changes through, so that the Home Office will agree and we can put them through. That is why we have ten-minute rule Bills and private Members’ Bills. It is possible to put such changes through. It does make one vulnerable to accusations from the BBC—recently I put a piece of legislation through that was on the Floor of the House for just 17 minutes because everybody agreed on it, and I think everybody will on this area, too.
	It is probable that the inquiry will rehash lessons already learned, but not always acted upon. The legislation that is in place has also not always been acted upon, partly because many of the non-specialist police officers do not know what is available.
	I hope we will relax a little over the inquiry, and let it get on with the job. It is a big job that will take a long time, and we should leave the inquiry team alone for a while to get on with it. Having said that, I want to repeat my small inquiry to the Minister, who is half-listening on the Front Bench: that team is excellent, but it does not include a police officer or ex-police officer, and I can recommend one or two if I am asked—and I am willing to be asked.

Zac Goldsmith: I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing the debate, along with the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who cannot be here today for good reason. The hon. Gentleman made a powerful case, and I would not want him to be on my case under any circumstances because he is a formidable campaigner.
	I do not want to go into too many of the specifics of the abuse allegations, as that would not be appropriate for today, but I do want to emphasise the scale of the allegations. The Westminster paedophile ring, which has now become a murder investigation; Jimmy Savile; children’s homes; the Church; Rochdale; the grooming scandals in Rotherham: it goes on and on and on. There is the Elm Guest House, too, which is in my constituency, and the reason why I am here today—and it is also the reason why I became aware of these horrific events.
	I also want to emphasise how important this inquiry is and why its nature, form, structure, remit and credibility matter so very much. We now know that there have been systematic cover-ups. Powerful people have done terrible things and they have been protected, and
	unsurprisingly many of the victims left behind are struggling today to believe that that same establishment is on their side. Frankly, it has not been for many, many years.
	We need only consider the Elm Guest House in Barnes, which was run by Haroon and Carole Kasir. It was raided more than 30 years ago, back in 1982. The couple were fined and given suspended sentences for running a disorderly house, but at the time there were already questions and allegations around the abuse of young children at the house. Allegedly—we are reliably told this—12 boys gave evidence in 1982 that they had been abused, yet all these allegations simply evaporated at the time, some 30 years ago. They are only resurfacing now.
	When Mrs Kasir died a few years after the house was raided, in very odd circumstances, a child protection campaigner from the National Association Of Young People In Care called for a criminal investigation into events at Elm Guest House. He said he had been told by Mrs Kasir that boys had been brought in from a local children’s home—Grafton Close, also in Richmond—for sex, and that she had photographs of establishment figures at her hotel. One of them apparently showed a former Cabinet Minister in a sauna with a naked boy. She had logbooks, names, times, dates, pictures of her customers and so on. All that evidence simply disappeared after the raids and no longer exists. That is astonishing.
	The Met has since confirmed that Cyril Smith visited the place—the hon. Member for Rochdale has made this point—and at least three other men named in documents as visitors to the Elm Guest House were later convicted of multiple sexual offences against children. It is impossible to believe there wasn’t a cover up. This is not sloppiness; there has to be more to it than that.
	Then this week it emerged that a former news editor of one of my local papers, the Surrey Comet, had been prevented from making inquiries into the Elm Guest House in 1984 after he was issued a D notice by the Government. It goes on and on and on.
	We all know about the famous Dickens dossier, a long list of names of abusers that was handed into the then Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, in 1983. That dossier, too, has vanished. The Wanless review was established to look into its whereabouts. It has been inconclusive on many levels, but it refers to a letter that Leon Brittan, then Home Secretary, wrote in reply to Mr Dickens on 20 March 1984. It states that a dossier of letters provided by Mr Dickens was passed to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and that,
	“in the view of the DPP, two”
	of these cases
	“could form the basis for enquiries by the police and have been passed to the appropriate authorities.”
	There is no evidence of those letters now. How is that even possible? How is it possible for those trails to evaporate in that way?
	Things have moved on, and today the Met is investigating allegations that at least three young boys were murdered by this depraved network of VIP and MP paedophiles. Operation Midland is the name of the investigation. On the back of that, a retired magistrate, Vishambar Mehrotra, the father of eight-year-old Vishal, who disappeared in 1981 and whose body was found a year later in West Sussex, has come forward to say that at the time of his
	son’s disappearance he was contacted by a male prostitute who told him that his son had probably been killed by VIP paedophiles linked to Elm Guest House. He recorded that conversation and took it to the police, but nothing happened. Again, the evidence just evaporated.
	Linked to that, two former Scotland Yard detectives who had investigated allegations of the murder of young boys more than 30 years ago have recently said on record that they were instructed to stop their investigations at the time. This all sounds unbelievable, but who now among us or outside this place would want to suggest that there have been no conspiracies? Who would just dismiss this stuff as fantasy? A few years ago, we probably all would have done so, but not nowadays.

Ian Lucas: When the Waterhouse inquiry, a judicial inquiry, took place, allegations were made relating to politicians and paedophile networks in north Wales. Does the hon. Gentleman not find it extraordinary that none of the information to which he is referring appears to have been considered by that inquiry?

Zac Goldsmith: I have only the patchiest knowledge of the case that the hon. Gentleman has just described, so I cannot really comment on it, but we could sit here for hours swapping examples of important evidence that has disappeared and of leads that have not been followed up.
	When we see some of the stories that we now know to be true, it is not hard to understand why there are pockets of conspiracy. I am not convinced that there is a grand, overarching conspiracy, but there are without a doubt lots of pockets of conspiracy and cover-up, and that has been happening over the past few decades. We know, for example, that a former deputy director of MI6, Sir Peter Hayman, was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange. That is not disputed. We know that he was investigated in 1978 for having grotesque images in his possession. We also know that absolutely nothing happened with that evidence.
	Thanks to the new Operation Cayacos, we also know about the convicted paedophile, Peter Righton, whom the hon. Member for Rochdale has mentioned in many contexts. He was once regarded as a leading child protection specialist in this country, but he ran a sophisticated network of abusers. When he was raided in 1992, 25 years-worth of correspondence between him and other paedophiles was found, but again the leads just dried up. I could provide endless similar examples—I suspect that many other Members could do the same—but I hope that I have already made my point. I will not dwell on the examples any further.
	This is why the inquiry is so important, and why we must bend over backwards to ensure that it is credible even to those who are most suspicious of it, particularly the survivors who have direct experience of cover-ups and are unwilling to blanket-trust the establishment and the authorities to be on their side.

Mark Reckless: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman has only been in the Chamber for a few minutes. The debate has been going on for some considerable time. The normal convention is that
	Members should be in the Chamber to hear more of the debate—rather than just a few minutes of the current speech—before they intervene. The hon. Gentleman is returning to the House and he should know the courtesies of the House well. He should not need to be reminded of them.

Zac Goldsmith: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is welcome to intervene on me whenever the appropriate time comes.
	I want to give the House some specific information relating to the inquiry that we are talking about. I also have some questions and suggestions for the Home Secretary and for the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who is here in her place. First, we need to know that the Home Office has instructed all Ministries and Government agencies—including the security services, the NHS, police forces, local authorities and schools—not to destroy any documents that are even remotely connected to child sex abuse. I might be wrong, but I believe that if this were a statutory inquiry, that would already have been done. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that important point.
	The Home Secretary has been firm about the security services needing to hand over evidence, but she has not explained how that has or will be done. This may not even be necessary, but it is worth considering empowering the inquiry to compel the security services to hand over information in the event that that becomes necessary. The selection of the inquiry chair has been discussed, but it is crucial. I accept that whoever the chair is they will be the chair of a panel and the panel as a whole will have a role to play. I would like to understand better exactly how the chair will be selected, how MPs are going to be consulted on that and how survivors are going to be consulted. I very much hope the panel will have a role in the chair’s selection.
	There are fears, some of which have been expressed today, that the police lack adequate resources to carry out the necessary investigations, particularly now that this has moved into a murder inquiry. I know that the police inquiries have already moved up quite a few notches since this inquiry was announced, and I do not think that is a coincidence. I believe that police numbers on Operation Fernbridge and associated investigations have grown from seven to 40 in the past few months, which is very good news. I hope that trend continues and that the police are given all the resources they need to get to the bottom of this, once and for all.
	Historically, however, the police have been part of the story, just as MPs, celebrities and everyone else has been, and it is imperative that people coming forward have absolute confidence that they will be heard and that leads will be correctly followed up. So, following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), it must be made clear how the inquiry that will be looking at the processes—the cover-ups—will handle allegations and ensure that they are picked up properly by the appropriate police.

Julian Smith: I have had experience in my constituency recently of working with a victim and the police were asking the victim I was trying to help for details of the conversations she had had with me. We still face a major issue with some elements in the police of interference and of a lack of understanding of the relationship between an MP and others, independent of the work that they are doing.

Zac Goldsmith: My hon. Friend makes the point well and puts it on the record.

Paul Beresford: I want to intervene on the intervention, because I have been in the same situation as that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), and it was part of the police process of gathering evidence. I saw it in a positive way because the lady may not have told the police what she told me and I gave a full statement which added to what they already had. I saw it positively, not negatively.

Zac Goldsmith: I am going to bring my remarks to a close. We have a chance now to put these appalling wrongs right. That is partially thanks to intervention by people in this House and people outside it. Survivors have played a crucial role, but so, too, did the intervention in this House by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). That was crucial in shifting this process forward, as was the exposé of Cyril Smith by the hon. Member for Rochdale. Above all, I wish to pay tribute to the extraordinary work by the investigative journalists at Exaro, particularly David Hencke. That organisation has led the campaign on so many fronts. The mainstream press, who have been so slow to pick up on what is really happening in this scandal, have become heavily dependent, and rightly so, on Exaro. I sometimes feel that because it is online and does not have the magazine on people’s desks, it is somehow invisible to people who are not paying attention. But Exaro is crucial; David Hencke has encyclopaedic knowledge of something that I do not ever want to have encyclopaedic knowledge of, and he is an extraordinary figure.
	There can no longer be any doubt that powerful people have done terrible things and that they have been protected by the establishment. We know that some of the key figures are alive today, and the measure of success for the police investigations is that those people face justice before they die. This process really needs to happen now. Justice must be done and it must be seen to be done. It is no good waiting years and years for some of these people to fade away and be punished in their absence—that is not good enough. The measure of success for this inquiry is that we and the wider public understand how these conspiracies and cover-ups have been able to happen. Only by understanding how they form will we have any hope of preventing them from forming again.

Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend has touched on the key point. The key point we have to learn, which we have been learning, using and considering in the changes to legislation, is that we must be proactive. We have to get the individuals before they get the children.

Zac Goldsmith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
	Let me end by putting it on the record that I am grateful to the current Home Secretary for having had the courage to initiate this process. She is often described as having been bullied and hectored by a bunch of MPs, but, as someone who has done a lot of lobbying on the subject in the four and a half years that I have been here, I can say that it was not difficult to get her to act. She gets the importance of the issue. I do not doubt her absolute commitment and believe that she will leave no stone unturned in getting to the bottom of the matter.

John Hemming: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on calling for and securing this debate. Progress has been made; we now have a panel to look at the wider issues relating to child sexual abuse. I am pleased that Ivor Frank, a barrister who has himself been in care, has been appointed to the panel. I did get Michael Mansfield to agree to chair the panel, but I have not yet managed to persuade the Home Secretary to appoint him.
	It is worthwhile to look at the issues that the panel will be considering, some of which are not in the terms of reference, which should be widened to include Northern Ireland, the Crown dependencies and possibly the British overseas territories. My speech will range wider than that. I spoke on this subject on 13 November 2012; anyone interested should read column 246 of Hansard of that date. I will not repeat the speech, but I refer again to Mike Stein, who, in his excellent article in Child and Family Social Work in February 2006, explained how widespread the problem was, with a possible one in seven children in care being subject to abuse. Perhaps that bears repeating: one in seven children in care. I accept that care is not the only place in which child sexual abuse occurs, but we need to understand how large a number that is. Obviously, it explains why there are so many survivors who are upset about the cover-up.
	When looking at the past, it is important that we learn lessons for the future. One lesson that we should really learn is how easy it is for things to be concealed by agents of the state. Hillsborough is relevant in that sense. It should be noted from the Rotherham report that it is only through media attention that anything happens. The checks and balances operating in the system might as well have been welded together for all the challenge that they provided. I remain concerned about the work of Verita, for example, which has been involved in previous cover-ups of errors by the state. I was shocked to see it at the centre of the Savile inquiries both in the UK and Jersey. The central control over the reports from hospitals enables any links to those people protecting him to be concealed.
	Let me turn now to the word “independent”. Someone who is paid by someone else is not “independent” of the payor. We see that in the petition I presented for Shaz Hussain, which demonstrated how the local hospital can commission KPMG to write what suits the hospital management rather than the truth. The word “independent” is massively misused in the child protection system. The independent reviewing officer is just another employee of the local authority, and we can see how ineffectual that role is by looking at A and S (Children) v. Lancashire county council 2012 EWHC 1689 (Family).
	England has many more problems than Scotland, although there are cases such as that of Mark and Kerry McDougall, who lived happily with their two children in Ireland, but were on the receiving end of vindictive proceedings that saw their children removed when they returned to Scotland. Sadly, they have had to return to Ireland as mum is pregnant, and we will see where that goes.
	The state has many tools at its disposal. Local authorities get injunctions to stop people from complaining to legislatures, which is an appalling situation. When it comes to child sexual exploitation, there have been problems with the attitudes of those responsible for caring for children even if they do not go as far as the one in seven reported by Mike Stein.
	In Birmingham, practitioners in the past have argued that children should be permitted to prostitute themselves while not being allowed to make toast for each other. Attitudes are now shifting, but it remains the case that I have reported cases and felt that my reports were not taken seriously. Someone spoke to me this year about a paedophile network operating in Birmingham in the 1990s, which included at least one senior manager in the child protection arm of social services. I reported that to the police and the local authority. I spoke again to my contact this morning who confirmed that the council had said nothing and that the police had failed to give an update, although they did speak initially.
	The council has produced a report called “We Need to Get it Right” in which it states that child sexual exploitation was a “hidden issue”. I raised that in Parliament in 2007 and had expressed concern previously to the local authority. Hence, the issue was not so much hidden as ignored. I have recently raised concerns on behalf of a constituent about activities around the canal going into the city centre, but neither my constituent nor I are satisfied with the response of the authorities, which seem to want to sweep the matter under the carpet—or into the canal.
	Some of the public have wondered why, if we have parliamentary privilege, we are not naming names. Speaking personally, I am always concerned that there should be evidence. Lots of things are said on the internet, but we need to remember that not everything on the internet is true. Furthermore, we also need to avoid prejudicing any formal inquiries.
	What is true is that very recently, in mid-2011, a journalist from the USA, Leah McGrath Goodman, was banned from the common travel area because she told authorities she was investigating child abuse in Jersey. That included Haut de la Garenne, one place where Savile was active; this happened before he died. She could have asked him who was protecting him, but she was banned by the UK Government. Not only that, but she was obstructed in Heathrow later when the ban was reduced to a year from two years and she finally got a visa. It seems clear that there are influential individuals still using the tools of the state to hold back investigations. What is important is that there will still be an audit trail of evidence and if something is missing it will be obvious.
	Jersey is an important element of the debate. It is excluded from the terms of reference, but we know that children were sent there from London to be sexually
	abused. There are also reasonably widespread reports of abuse cruises involving children in Jersey being visited by people from the UK.
	We know that with Kincora, which is outside the terms of reference, and with Cyril Smith, the security services were involved in covering up child abuse. Sir Peter Hayman’s role is obviously key in considering that question. Robert Armstrong should have known by the end of October 1978 about Sir Peter Hayman’s involvement in Paedophile Information Exchange because he had access to all the UK’s secrets and was potentially vulnerable to blackmail. The finding of a sealed letter addressed to him in his false name at his secret London flat—a very curious sequence of events—should have been raised with Merlyn Rees and then with James Callaghan. PIE’s membership is, of course, both a threat to and an opportunity for MI5.
	What is interesting about the Wanless report is that the Home Office had a set of secret files on about 100 children’s homes that was passed to the Department of Health in 1972. Their purpose is not described and all the files were marked to be retained and not disclosed for 75 or 100 years. That set of files was not disclosed to Wanless, although Wanless does refer to a standard National Archive file called “Home Secretary’s Meetings” that ended in 1984. That file is missing from the National Archives and could not be found by National Archives staff. Furthermore, the security services refused to provide any information to Wanless and there are questions about what has happened with the special branch files.
	There are signs of security service involvement in the treatment of Leah McGrath Goodman as well, and that is of course recent. Answers are needed and the events are sufficiently recent for the answers to be there for anyone who looks with their eyes open.
	I have been approached by police officers who are concerned that the management within the Metropolitan police—the senior sergeants or whatever—instructed junior police officers to conceal evidence, and there are examples that can be identified. I put to the Home Secretary the suggestion that where there is a command structure and a senior officer instructs a junior officer to break the law, there should be an opportunity for some sort of amnesty for the junior officer if they then reveal that, so they do not end up being prosecuted for revealing how they were forced to commit offences.
	I wrote to the Home Secretary in July asking whether that could be done and received a standard response about the inquiry about a week ago. I have written again to suggest action if we wanted to find out the truth of what has gone on in the Met. There is no doubt that there were people in the Met who were involved in the cover-up. I have had people report that to me; a lot of people are willing to speak up, but not if they end up going to jail as a consequence of admitting what they were forced to do. It is a complex issue, of course, because whenever we have amnesties we need to consider their limits, but if things continue to be concealed because people are frightened to tell the truth it will be very difficult to get to the truth. One of the critical points in all this is getting to the truth.
	I recently asked a question to find out about reports written about British overseas territories such as St Helena. It appears that people have known for years what is
	going on in such places but that nothing has been done to make things work any better. I happen to know that a couple of employment tribunals, which I do not think are covered by the sub judice resolution, started today in Kingsway and will be reported in the media tomorrow. They are relevant and if people are interested they should follow the proceedings.
	Let me mention again the failure of the Government to modify the SSDA903 return in order to track when children are lost or trafficked out of the care system. It does not appear that the Government are bothered about this given that they refused to even count them. I continue to go on about this. I know that I am a bit of a techie who is really interested in computer systems and things like that, but if children are disappearing from the care system and we do not bother to count them, what does that say? The response from the Minister was:
	“The Department has no plans to expand the codes under which local authorities provide statistical returns on children missing from care, as this will lead to an unnecessary increase in reporting requirements.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 641W.]
	Frankly, that is unacceptable. We should be concerned if children are being trafficked. We should be sufficiently concerned as an absolute minimum to count how many are trafficked and find out which authorities they are lost from and what their ages are. We are lucky in that we have a reasonably good database that tracks what happens to children in care. Every year, a large number disappear for other reasons—not that they have gone back to their parents, or have been adopted. They just disappear from the system. I do not think that that is reasonable. We are happy to send in auditors if we are worried that money has disappeared. We send in local government auditors to check about local government finance. We audit the finances to make sure that money has not been stolen. We do not audit what happens to children to make sure that they have not been stolen. That is a failure of this Government, of whom I happen to be a quasi supporter as a Back Bencher.
	The history here is all about abuse of power by employees of the state. The fact that it involves the maltreatment of children for sexual gratification makes this all the worse. For the future, we need to make it harder for state employees to conceal abuses of power. More transparency and accountability are needed, as well as less secrecy. Parliament, which is the voice of the people, has to stand on the side of the powerless. Whitehall mandarins, judges, BBC managers, council bureaucrats and professionals all have their own interests and a desire to hide mistakes. Parliament needs to balance the scales on the side of the weak—those without wealth who are crying out and not being heard.

Diana Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing this debate, which is on the progress of the historical child abuse inquiry. I pay tribute to him for his doughty campaigning on child abuse since entering the House of Commons, and for telling the real story about Cyril Smith.
	It is right to acknowledge that in his opening speech my hon. Friend set the tone for what has been a good and important debate. He started his speech by describing
	the experience of survivors. He talked about William and about John and the life chances that had been limited by the people who abused them. I want to use my speech this afternoon to focus on survivors in relation to the inquiry.
	We have heard powerful speeches from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who brings a wealth of experience as a former children’s Minister, and the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who has introduced many changes to the law to protect children over the years. He is another doughty fighter on behalf of children and young people. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) spoke eloquently about what he knew had happened in his constituency and the Elm guest house allegations. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) has spoken on many occasions about these issues.
	What is powerful about all the speeches was that they were informed in the main by the stories of survivors of abuse. The House owes a huge debt to the survivors, who have shown enormous courage in coming forward, in the hope that their experience can prevent what happened to them from happening again, and that justice can, wherever possible, be done. This debate and the wider inquiry that we are discussing have to have at their heart the survivors’ voices. I want to thank all those people who have taken the time to speak to me and tell me what they want to see out of this child abuse inquiry, including Peter Saunders of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood and Andrew Kershaw of the Survivors of Forde Park, both of whom have done so much to give a voice to those abused as children.
	Having listened to the debate today, the Minister can be in no doubt about the commitment of hon. Members to the success of this child abuse inquiry and to ensuring that it has the confidence of survivors. Hon. Members appreciate the scale of the task facing the inquiry panel and the need for the panel to carry out the inquiry in a timely manner, as we know that many perpetrators are growing older and must be brought to justice wherever possible.
	Along with the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), many Members have been calling for the overarching inquiry for about two years, so when the Home Secretary announced that she would set it up, that was welcomed across the House. As we know, however, she appointed a chair without proper vetting or consultation. After that sorry saga, we ended up, unbelievably, in the same position with a second chair. We know that the Home Secretary apologised for that and is trying to make sure that from now on there is proper consultation and vetting of the prospective chair. I listened to what the permanent secretary at the Home Office told this place this week, when he said that the child abuse inquiry would be one of the top three issues for the Home Office. That is encouraging to hear.
	In relation to the chair, perhaps the Minister will be able to help the House. I understand that about 100 nominations have been made. With due diligence checks and the pre-appointment consultation and hearings that have been scheduled, a chair is unlikely to be in place before the spring of 2015. Will the Minister comment on that timetable?
	Although I have just mentioned how important it is to make sure that a chair is appointed as soon as possible, that is not nearly as important as making sure that the survivors of abuse have a voice in the inquiry and that they are involved in discussions about how the inquiry is to proceed. That has not happened enough, which is a problem. It was a fundamental mistake not to consult survivors about the panel members. Although I accept that all the panel members have a great deal to commend them, survivors tell me that they would like to have been consulted. I noted that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that MPs were asked for their opinion and for any suggestions. That is welcome, but the Government missed a trick by not making sure that survivors were also consulted about panel members. As all hon. Members will recognise, if the inquiry is to succeed, survivors must have confidence in the panel to which they will give evidence.
	A number of hon. Members referred to the terms of reference. Again, I note that there was no consultation with survivors about the terms of reference for the inquiry. One issue that I would like to take up with the Minister is the cut-off date of 1970. The Home Secretary has said that if that cut-off date is a problem, she will listen to any representations in favour of taking it back further which the chair considers appropriate, but I wonder why the date of 1970 was chosen. I was told just this week that approved schools where a number of children and young people were abused closed in 1969, so they would not come within the scope of the terms of reference. The survivors feel that their experience would not automatically be considered by the panel. Will the Minister explain to the House why 1970 was the date chosen? I have heard suggestions from survivors that the terms of reference should set a cut-off date just after the second world war, which would allow any person still living who has suffered abuse to come forward and feel that their experiences could be part of the inquiry.
	Most importantly, I want to talk about how survivors’ voices should be heard in the inquiry. The hon. Member for Mole Valley referred to the experience in Northern Ireland. Its historical institutional abuse inquiry commenced, as he said, with an acknowledgement forum, for the purposes of listening to those who were abused as children in those institutions. That process has taken many months and allowed anyone who has been abused in institutions to come forward and be heard. The acknowledgment forum spoke to more than 500 people. That was not the end of its process of listening to survivors, but the start, informing the next stage of the inquiry, but still hearing from survivors directly.
	Australia’s child abuse inquiry has been very good about moving around the country. It reached out to survivors, and the response has been overwhelming. It has taken 17,500 telephone calls, received more than 7,800 letters and e-mails and held over 2,500 private sessions. The English and Welsh inquiry, however, seems to have had two sessions in London and plans two more outside London. They appear to be open meetings. I am very unclear about what it is proposed should happen at those events. It feels to me that they are insufficient, and it is very unclear how they will support survivors who come forward. In Australia and Northern Ireland, people were asked to contact the inquiry, and the inquiry team then worked with individuals to enable them to give evidence in the most appropriate way. They were signposted to support and advice.
	I do not think there is any point in proceeding with this inquiry until a process for involving and supporting survivors is established. Existing services, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, are stretched to breaking point, including NAPAC, which faces losing its offices early next year, at a time of unprecedented demand for its support.

Julian Smith: On the remarks that the hon. Lady has just made about the inquiry, which I am really pleased has started its work—the panel members got started on 12 November—are she and the Labour party recommending that that work should now be paused? Will she clarify her remarks?

Diana Johnson: The problem is that there seems to be a lack of clarity—probably because there is no chair in place—as to how the inquiry is going forward and what the purposes of the regional meetings are. I have asked a number of people to explain to me how those meetings will be conducted. If survivors are to come forward and give evidence at those meetings—I do not know whether that is their purpose—there is a concern about the lack of clarity and the lack of an agreed process as to how that is to be handled. That is why I wanted to refer to the Northern Ireland example, as it is very clear what it was going to do in that first period: hear from survivors so that it could get to grips with the extent of the problem through the evidence before it, which would then determine how the rest of the inquiry would proceed. My purpose in referring to that inquiry was to highlight the need for clarity on how proceedings should go on.
	On the point about the support available to survivors, I think that we need a very clear process—this fits in with what the hon. Gentleman has just asked—for the inquiry, whereby survivors are fully involved and supported and it has their confidence. I think that we are all looking to ensure that survivors are in that position as the inquiry moves forward.

Julian Smith: The hon. Lady has still not directly answered my question about the Labour party’s view, given what she has said. Does she agree that it is very problematic to ask Ministers to micro-manage this inquiry? There are some very senior people on the panel, and they must now be able to get on with their work. Has she spoken directly to the panel members about their plans for the next few months?

Diana Johnson: I am not trying to imply that the Minister or the Home Secretary should micro-manage. I am merely highlighting where the inquiry is not operating in a clear way, such that survivors are saying that they are not sure what the process is or what the purpose of the regional meetings is. I think the problem stems from the fact that no chair is in place directing the inquiry. As I said, the chair may not be appointed for many months. That causes me some concern. I hope that the Minister will be able to assist us on what the Home Office and Ministers may be able to do to support the panel in making the process a bit clearer so that survivors really understand what is happening during this period.
	We must make sure that survivors who come forward with their evidence are fully supported afterwards. I worry that the Home Secretary has talked about the
	NHS being part of providing that support, given that the NHS is under such stress, particularly in terms of counselling services, where there are often long waiting lists. What additional support will be available to survivors, and particularly to third sector groups?
	This inquiry must aim to investigate historical child abuse, to try to bring justice to those who have seen justice denied for too long, and to inform current practice in the field of child protection to stop children being abused in future. While it is important to investigate historical allegations, we must never forget that children are still being abused today, as a number of hon. Members said.
	I want to make a suggestion to the Minister about the way forward. While the main inquiry establishes a forum for hearing from survivors, in the first instance, the other inquiries that have been set up—such as the north Wales care homes inquiry, the BBC inquiry, and the ongoing NHS inquiries—would have time to conclude and to put forward their recommendations for a response. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) mentioned the potential confusion about how those other inquiries will fit with the overarching inquiry, and that is part of the overall problem of how this is going to work. The main inquiry could then commence in the position of having heard from survivors of abuse and seen the recommendations of the other inquiries and what they have come up with.
	On the legal status of the inquiry, there is a particular issue relating to documents. Lawyers have told me that because the inquiry has not been put on a statutory footing, organisations could destroy documents with no legal consequences, whereas if it were to be put on a statutory footing, there would be criminal consequences for that type of behaviour. The Home Secretary has said that the chair can decide whether to make the inquiry statutory, so that suggests that her mind is open to it. However, as we know, the chair is unlikely to be appointed for many months, and lawyers are saying that in the meantime documents could be destroyed. The hon. Member for Richmond Park also raised this point. Will the Minister comment on it?
	We need to hear from the Minister how she is going to make this inquiry work with the confidence of survivors, and how she will give survivors the voice that they deserve and that the inquiry has to hear. She needs to give us an overview of how she sees survivors being consulted and to explain how they will be listened to in the inquiry. I hope that she will also address the broader question of how the inquiry will build on the other inquiries already set up and work to inform best practice. The survivors need to know that this Government and this Parliament want the inquiry to succeed. We want to give survivors whatever redress is possible and to learn lessons so that these terrible situations do not arise in future.

Karen Bradley: May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing this important debate, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving him the time to address and air the incredibly important issues involved? I welcome the chance to debate them again.
	I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), whose experience as a former children’s Minister makes him an expert in this field. I promise my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who also has great experience, that I listened to his speech extraordinarily carefully. I have always appreciated his regular suggestions to me on many topics, particularly those under discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) also has great knowledge of the issue as a result of his constituency experience, and he has been instrumental in making sure that it is taken seriously and given the prominence it deserves in Parliament. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) for his contribution, which shed considerable light on the path we have taken to get to this point.
	I want to start by being clear on the title of the inquiry under discussion. It is the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse. It is not, as the title of this debate on the Order Paper says, an inquiry into “historic” child sex abuse. I say that because survivors have been clear with us that, for them, the abuse they have suffered is not historic—it is not done, it is not finished and it is not in the past. It is something the consequences of which they have to deal with every single day of their lives. The hon. Member for Rochdale opened his speech by mentioning William and John—I know those are not their real names—which really brought home how live this issue is for victims. We should treat it not as historic but as a real, current problem.
	As the Home Secretary set out when she spoke to the House on 3 November, the work of the inquiry is hugely important, providing us with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expose what went wrong in the past and prevent it from going wrong in the future. I want to focus on how we go about finding out the truth about these crimes.
	I repeat that it is a live issue. If hon. Members had the opportunity to check their phones or smart devices during the course of the debate, they will have seen the report about the conviction yesterday of a Bristol sex gang jailed for grooming girls:
	“Thirteen men have been convicted of a string of child sex crimes in Bristol involving the abuse, rape and prostitution of teenage girls.”
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham talked about the awareness we have today and how this crime is now treated differently. We should all be very proud of that. We should also be very pleased that the police are taking such matters seriously and getting successful convictions.
	We need, however, to understand what happened in the past. It is important to consider the inquiry’s terms of reference, which are:
	“To consider the extent to which State and non-State institutions have failed in their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation; to consider the extent to which those failings have since been addressed; to identify further action needed to address any failings identified; and to publish a report with recommendations.”
	That is important because, when a specific crime is uncovered as a result of this work, it must be investigated by the police, law enforcement bodies and the relevant
	bodies in whichever territorial area the crime took place. The inquiry is looking at the way in which state and non-state institutions have approached child abuse in the past. We need to make sure that we get to the bottom of that, but that does not preclude us from looking at the crimes themselves and ensuring that, wherever those crimes took place, they are properly investigated.

Jeremy Corbyn: For the record, am I right in thinking that the commission of inquiry will, if necessary, investigate outside UK jurisdiction—the Channel Islands, for instance—reports of abuses in children’s homes there?

Karen Bradley: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will come on to territorial extent shortly.
	On the chairing of the inquiry, the House will be aware that the first two chairs resigned. It is important to say that they resigned not because they did not have the right credentials, but because they did not command the confidence of survivors. As the Home Secretary made clear, the priority now is to find someone who is suitably qualified and who can also win that confidence.
	The Home Secretary and the whole of the Home Office are committed to working with survivors and their representatives in the process of recruiting a new chair. I can update the House today by saying that the Home Secretary has had a number of meetings with survivors of abuse and their representatives. She has not yet finished that process so I am not in a position to provide an update on the outcome of those discussions, as I am sure all hon. Members will understand. However, I can say that survivors have made it clear that they want the inquiry, that they want the right chair to be in place and that they want to continue working with both the Government and the independent panel. I absolutely agree that all that must happen.
	The discussions with survivors and their representatives are helping to form the process for appointing a new chair. The Home Secretary will also speak to the panel and parliamentarians as the process develops. We are clear on what survivors require. I can confirm that whoever the Home Secretary chooses as the new chair will be subject to a pre-confirmation hearing in front of the Home Affairs Committee.
	In the meantime, nominations for the chair continue to come in to the Home Office. As has been noted, there are already more than 100 nominees on the list. We are confident that among the nominees we can find a suitable chair, someone who will command the overall confidence of survivors and be able to lead the complex and sensitive work of the inquiry.
	What is the panel doing? As the Home Secretary set out in her statement to the House on 3 November, the panel will continue to go about its vital work. It is meeting weekly in the run-up to Christmas. Panel members have already attended two listening meetings with victims and survivors. Two further regional meetings will be held before Christmas, and four regional meetings will be held in the new year. The meetings will provide an early opportunity for survivors to give their views, and they will help to inform the panel on how to go about its work.

Diana Johnson: I thank the Minister for that very useful information, but I am a little concerned. Are survivors not therefore expected to give evidence to the panel? Obviously, there is no chair and the support—I hope the Minister will come on to that shortly—is not in place at the moment. Will she say a little more about the listening events?

Karen Bradley: The Home Secretary and I are obviously not instructing the panel on how to go about this exercise. The important point is that this is an early opportunity to make sure that victims and survivors can help to frame how the panel approaches the inquiry.
	On the hon. Lady’s point about Government support, victims must be able to come forward to report abuse to the police and to get the support they need. If child abuse takes place, it must be thoroughly and properly investigated, and those responsible must be arrested and brought to justice. As part of a series of meetings that the Home Secretary is chairing in response to Rotherham, the Government are looking at how best to provide urgent support to victims. We are very aware that we need to make sure that there is proper and appropriate support for victims, so that they can have the confidence to come forward and we can support them when they do.
	The panel is considering as a priority the best ways in which to engage with victims and survivors, and how to ensure that the right package of support is available to those who take part in the inquiry. Those giving evidence will share and relive some of the most appalling experiences anyone can live through. The panel will endeavour to make the process of giving evidence the most supportive and least traumatic for survivors that it is possible to make it.
	Both the secretariat to the inquiry and officials in the Home Office are already in discussion with officials in the Department of Health, and they will work with charitable organisations, all of which have a vital part to play in making sure that the right support and counselling is available. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park asked about whether we are working with other Departments. It is important to say that the permanent secretary has written to all Departments to tell them that they must fully support the inquiry. That information has gone out to all Departments to make sure that they are aware of the inquiry.
	The panel is working on the approach it will take and the methodology it will use in the collection and analysis of information and evidence. These fundamentals for the inquiry will be the way in which it ensures that the terms of reference are met, that survivors and victims of sexual abuse are given a voice, and that that voice is heard and makes a difference for future generations. The panel is also seeking to learn lessons from the Australian royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse about what worked well and what did not.
	The Home Secretary will be happy to discuss the terms of reference for the inquiry, including its territorial extent, and the composition of the panel with the new chair, when they are appointed. It is important that the inquiry be able to work fully with the devolved Administrations, including with the Hart inquiry in
	Northern Ireland and the Oldham inquiry in Jersey, to ensure that no information and no institution or individual with a case to answer falls through the cracks.

Ian Lucas: I wonder whether the Minister can deal with a point that I am puzzled by. I put down a parliamentary question about the Macur review and it was transferred to the Ministry of Justice for an answer. She is detailing the extent to which the Home Office will be involved in the inquiry. Will she confirm that the Home Office will be leading on this matter, because when I asked a question on the Macur review, I received an answer from the Ministry of Justice? I am confused.

Karen Bradley: Without knowing the specifics of the question, I cannot explain why it was given to the Ministry of Justice. That particular question was clearly within the portfolio of the Ministry of Justice. The Home Office is leading on this inquiry.
	The shadow Minister asked about the dates that the inquiry will cover. It is true that the inquiry will consider cases from 1970 to the present. However, the panel might be presented with evidence that leads it to conclude that the time frame should be extended. The important point is that the Home Secretary is open to listening to the panel and its chair, when they are appointed, to ensure that we are covering the right period and looking at all possible avenues. The panel will provide an update on its progress to the Home Secretary before May, which she will share with the House.
	The priority, of course, is to find a suitable chair to lead the hugely important work of the inquiry. As I have set out, that process is under way. I cannot give the House the date by which a new chair will be appointed, but I can say that it is a priority for the Home Secretary and the Government. We will appoint a new chair as soon as possible, but we must take the time to get it right. We must ensure that survivors have had their say and have been heard, and that parliamentarians and other interested parties have been appropriately engaged in the process so that we can all be confident that we have the right person in place to lead this once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver justice for those who have suffered and to save other vulnerable young children from the appalling abuse that so many have endured. That is the least we can do.

Simon Danczuk: I thank the Minister for her contribution. Some of the problems that we are encountering are to do with the delay in appointing the chair, which falls fairly and squarely at the door of the Home Office. Many of the questions that hon. Members have posed about the geography and the terms of reference cannot be answered because there is no chair in place. It is therefore important that progress be made on that.
	The shadow Minister made some good points and has clearly been listening to survivors of child sexual abuse. She made some constructive criticisms in discussing how we should move forward.
	To finish off, I will trot through some of the contributions that have been made and highlight some important points. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) rightly mentioned Jersey. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) said how
	important it was to prevent documents being destroyed. He also spoke about the role of the intelligence services and asked whether they will co-operate fully. It has been alleged that D notices relating to Elm Guest House have been destroyed. That matter is important.
	I was very interested to hear from the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). I was not familiar with the work he had carried out in years gone by. He was right to say that this abuse was going on well before 1970. He was also right that it is not just about high-profile cases. On the contrary, much abuse is not high profile at all.
	Finally, I come to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). The question of whether the inquiry should be on a statutory footing is critical. He also spoke about help and support for survivors. He finished on an optimistic point, which we must all concentrate on, about the progress we are making not only in this place, but in getting the inquiry to move forward.
	I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered progress of the historic child sex abuse inquiry.

WEST ANGLIA MAIN LINE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

Alan Haselhurst: Some people may think that this could be called groundhog day because I spoke in the House on this subject on 19 January 2011, and again on 11 December 2013. Apart from the passage of time not a lot has changed, except perhaps the Minister designated to reply to the debate. I could almost repeat those speeches word for word, but I might provoke an intervention from you, Mr Deputy Speaker, were I to attempt such a thing.
	I acknowledge all that has been said in this Chamber and Westminster Hall by colleagues who represent the length of the West Anglia line, including the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), the hon. Members for Edmonton (Mr Love) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and for Harlow (Robert Halfon), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) who hopes to catch your eye in short while, Mr Deputy Speaker. Despite everything that has been argued, nothing fundamental has been done to improve the experience of passengers on the West Anglia line.
	My concern has increased over time because the necessary remedies—which everyone acknowledges—seem to be receding into the future, and the talk is of an insufficient business case. It is no comfort to be told by Network Rail that reliability on the West Anglia line is better than on the Great Eastern line that forms part of the Abellio Greater Anglia franchise. I have constituents who rely on the Great Eastern line, and I am at one with my colleagues across East Anglia who demand action there as well, although I will not stray from the strict focus of this debate.
	The 1985 decision to designate Stansted as London’s third airport should have been the trigger for investment in the West Anglia rail line. There could have been no clearer example of the meaning of the oft-used term, “integrated transport”, yet subsequent Governments have pursued policies that generate extra demand at virtually every point along the route. The airport—now under the stewardship of the Manchester Airports Group—claims that 10,000 extra jobs will be created over the next 15 years. Well, they will not be filled by people from my constituency where unemployment, I am happy to say, is below 1%. Where will all those new employees, whether at the airport or in many other burgeoning businesses in the constituency, come from, and how will they get there? I cannot imagine that we want more and more vehicles clogging the M11, and that is before one counts the rising number of airline passengers. Is no one paying attention to the projections of the Manchester Airports Group, which are more bullish than those of the Davies commission?
	There is seldom any reference to freight. Stansted airport has quite a big freight centre. FedEx is perhaps the leading company, but there are also DHL, UPS, TNT and others. More and more vehicles will be coming
	from the centre of London along the M11. When talking of a business case, I would have thought it possible to introduce the concept of the movement of freight if more train paths can be found, but the limitation of the West Anglia line is that it has only two tracks for virtually all its length.
	So far as the infrastructure is concerned, there is now the prospect of the construction of a third rail from Coppermill junction to as far as Angel Road, principally to facilitate traffic from Angel Road through to Stratford. Stratford will become a much more important terminal in the London area as the years go by, with its connection to Crossrail and continental rail traffic. I am afraid that the third rail will add very little network capacity for longer distance destination services north of Angel Road.
	Another thing that could help, and which Network Rail is talking about, is the elimination of some crossings. The crossings that could help the most and that are affordable may still not add a great deal of extra leeway in terms of train acceleration to speed up journeys. That is the best that can be hoped for, but a year cannot be put on when it might be done. So that is it: the third rail and the elimination of some crossings—that is all we recognise that is on offer and on the table. For the rest, we are seemingly being told that we should be looking to control period 7, to use the jargon of Network Rail, and beyond. If fares were on hold over an equivalent indefinite period, the pain of travel might be somewhat eased. However, if my right hon. Friend were to announce that this afternoon, I think I would keel over in shock. The rolling stock, on which my constituents are obliged to travel, is of mixed vintage, so when I refer to the pain of travel there is an extra point to it.
	It is clear that Network Rail is not on the cusp of recommending action in control period 6 for the tracking of the line as far as Broxbourne, which everyone, including Network Rail itself, knows is necessary. Network Rail says that with longer trains and longer platforms it can “cope” with extra demand. That’s comforting, isn’t it? Just like, for example, it is coping so well with the basic fragility of the infrastructure, and just like it coped so well with overcoming a signalling fault outside Liverpool Street station this morning, which held up many trains by 20 minutes.
	I am really not expecting the case for four-tracking to be accepted through a cast-iron guarantee this afternoon, however good and generous we know my right hon. Friend to be, but we can ease the pain of travel if passengers have a better train experience. The complications over franchising, with the need to have another stop-gap franchise before a long franchise is let, have made it difficult for the train operator, Abellio Greater Anglia, to commit to new rolling stock. Only yesterday, it announced a whole series of measures to help the passenger experience across its whole network. The one item directed towards the West Anglia line is what it is pleased to call a “refresh” for 24 class 317 type 6 trains, which are known in the trade as 317/6s. What does the word “refresh” conjure up? I felt it was a bit like the ugly sisters glamming up for the ball: these are very old and very ugly trains. There is talk that about 24 trains may be refreshed, but what about the 317/5s, 317/7s and
	317/8s, which add up to another 27 sets of trains that are part of the staple stock running on the West Anglia line? However, no action has been promised.
	I would appreciate it if my right hon. Friend could reaffirm the promise given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), on 11 December 2013, when he was Under-Secretary of State, that the 10 type 379 units—the only modern ones we have—would stay on Cambridge services. Passengers understand the difference between standard class and first class, but with the rich variety of trains on the West Anglia line, there are 10 classes, which is not reflected in the fare structure. Standard class on a type 379 is a very different experience from standard class on a 3165—and probably a 3176 even when it has been refreshed.
	I do not include the inner-suburban stock, the type 315s, because they are going to be replaced. The Mayor and Transport for London have been granted the franchise to take suburban routes out of Liverpool Street station and into the Overground, and for that there will be 30 brand-new train sets. So inner-London services—I do not begrudge them—are getting decent trains, whereas the people who pay more and travel further and too often longer are not being offered new trains.
	If Network Rail is to “cope”—its highest ambition—with the extra demand by adding coaches to trains, where will they come from? I beg my right hon. Friend not to mention cascading type 319 trains from Thameslink, which are also quite old. The new Thameslink franchise is being fitted out with new trains, but not before 2018, so if the only new trains are the type 319s, we will be getting 30-year-old trains, and they probably only offer one class—and it is not first class. Crossrail is also getting new trains, so the only people not guaranteed new trains are the passengers to Harlow, Bishop’s Stortford, Audley End, Whittlesford Parkway, Shelford, Cambridge—all the stations in my constituency; we will be the Cinderella line. For the reasons I have adduced, we absolutely deserve new trains and no longer hand-me-downs.
	What needs to be done has been staring us in the face since 1985 when that airport decision was made. However, waiting for this to be nailed down by a business case has allowed nearly 30 years and eight Governments to pass without anything meaningful being done. The Government need to acknowledge this depressing situation—if Minister’s are uncertain, they should travel on the line—and then give some direction, not more interminable studies that we are tired of responding to without getting anywhere.
	Inevitably and understandably, there will be a wait before extra track capacity can be put in place, but while we wait, let us at least have the palliative of decent trains. The way to do that is by having a high-quality specification for the long franchise being let in 2016 for the Greater Anglia services demanding new trains, not something at the lowest end of the scale.
	That is the situation. This is the third impassioned plea I have made in a speech for the benefit of my constituents and the many other people travelling to and from the airport. The airport deserves a good service—I do not begrudge that—but those who are paying most often at the highest prices need the best of services. That is what I am looking for—some promise and some indication that that is recognised and will happen in the relatively near future.

Mark Prisk: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) not only on securing this debate, but on bringing his typically forensic expertise, about which close watchers of this House will know, to a subject that is dear to the heart of his constituents and mine. Indeed, we have worked together to champion this cause because it directly affects the daily lives of thousands of our constituents.
	I recently surveyed my own constituents on this issue, looking for the specific bugbears they have. It was a long list and I will not bore you with it, Mr Deputy Speaker. The overwhelming view of people in East Hertfordshire and in north-west Essex, as we have heard, is very clear: they regard this service as being very expensive, hugely overcrowded and, I am sorry to say, all too often unreliable. Those are sentiments with which I strongly associate myself.
	The Minister needs to know that we are not alone in this. Members representing areas along the line from Cambridge through Essex and Hertfordshire into London are now joining us to press for this investment—an investment, as we have heard, that is long overdue. It is a cause that is gaining momentum. In the last few months, we have seen an increasing number of major employers and now a majority of local authorities, together with local enterprise partnerships, saying, “We need this investment in the rolling stock and in the four-tracking.”
	The occasion of this debate follows the publication of what I would regard as an incomplete and, frankly, inadequate draft route study recently published by Network Rail. I am sorry to say that the study fails to address the fundamental problems on the line. Indeed, it seems completely detached from the realities of the overcrowding already in evidence for most of our constituents. To be fair, the draft route study has a few suggestions about some helpful incremental improvements, but it does nothing to address the lack of capacity and, in particular, the tracking into Liverpool Street.
	Just as importantly, and perhaps of equal concern to the Department, is the fact that this study by Network Rail ignores the recommendations of the Airports Commission for the four-tracking of the line to improve the links to Stansted airport. Given that Stansted is designated by the Department—and, indeed, by the Government—as London’s third airport, this oversight seems completely unacceptable. Just as bad for my constituents is the admission of the authors of the study that it
	“does not fully reflect potential housing growth projections in the Upper Lea Valley and the wider impacts on economic growth”.
	Some people estimate that the population along this corridor from London to Cambridge will rise by approximately 1 million people in the coming years. For Network Rail not to factor in that scale of development and population growth makes this draft study a joke, frankly. So what needs to be done?
	I urge the Minister to commission a full feasibility study to push Network Rail into doing what it should have done so that we can see a whole range of investment options for the line, including four-tracking. Some 13 options were offered for the great eastern line, while we were offered a paltry three. As my right hon. Friend
	described, most were short term and none addressed the principal challenge. Only a full study setting out all the options would provide the evidence base essential to good ministerial decision-making.
	Locally, of course, we believe that new rolling stock and four-tracking are essential. We know that they would ensure a service that is fit for purpose now and for the future, while enabling the sort of job creation and rates of economic growth that the Government rightly seek. Conversely, without a proper study, Ministers would become vulnerable, as any decision that they made on future investment would not be based on clear—
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mel Stride.)

Mark Prisk: As I was saying, I fear that Ministers would become vulnerable if their decisions were not based on clear and complete evidence. Were that the case, those decisions would be open to challenge—politically, of course, but, who knows, perhaps legally as well.
	If sustainable development policies are to be meaningful and robust, more homes and businesses must surely come with the additional infrastructure. I suggest that it is in the interests of not just our constituents—who must, of course, come first—but of the Government to ensure that Ministers have the facts on which to make the right decision, whether it be in the franchise letting next year or in control period 6 for infrastructure investment. I know that the Minister likes to have sound evidence on which to act. His Secretary of State certainly does, and he has already made clear to my right hon. Friend in the House that the West Anglia route will not be forgotten.
	I ask the Minister to acknowledge the inadequacies of the draft route study and to press for a full feasibility study, so that the evidence can be seen in the round and the right decisions can be made.

John Hayes: C.S. Lewis, the House will remember, was “Surprised by Joy”: surprised by the joy of the love of God, and surprised by the mortal love of the woman who subsequently became his wife. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) will be surprised by the joy of my response tonight—perhaps as surprised as I am to be rail Minister for the day.
	Taking full advantage of this space and this opportunity, perhaps we can make more progress than my right hon. Friend has made so far—despite, I must add, his consistent advocacy of the interests of his constituents. He mentioned that he had raised this matter many times. That is well known to the House, but what he did not mention, because his humility prevented him from so doing, was that he has always raised it both with immense courtesy and with absolute determination. In my experience, that combination is what enables us to get things done here. Let us hope that I can demonstrate that to my right hon. Friend in my response.
	I also welcomed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), with whom I served as a Minister. I know that he too is a doughty champion of his constituents’ interests, as well as being an accomplished Member of the House.
	Let me say at the outset that I have a script prepared by the civil servants, to which I will refer but by which I will not be constrained. It is not good enough not to reply to these debates properly, and replying to them properly means responding to the points made by the contributors.
	My right hon. Friend spoke about a Cinderella service. Tonight, I want Cinderella to go to the ball. He also spoke about the pain of travel, which I found quite poignant. Is it not sad that we have to talk about the pain of travel? Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend is right. Travel is all too often seen in those terms—not by Members, but by the people who must endure congested roads, overcrowded trains, and an inadequate transport infrastructure. The Government are determined to do better precisely because of our understanding of that. The record levels of investment in our railway and road networks show that we understand how much travel means, to economic growth—that point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford—but also to our individual and collective well-being. People travel for a range of purposes: they travel to work and to school, but also recreationally. Travel should be a joy, not a pain.
	Let me turn to some of the particular things that have been raised. To begin, it may be helpful to explain, for the benefit of the whole House, that the West Anglia main line is the route between London Liverpool Street, Stansted airport and Cambridge. At present, it is mainly a two-track railway serving commuters from Cambridgeshire, Essex and north-east London. The Stansted Express links central London with one of the UK’s major airports using the West Anglia main line structure.
	That significant range of demands means that there is a high and constant demand for rail services on a line with, as has been said, limited capacity. There are no signs that that demand is likely to decrease. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford said, the economic growth that we seek as part of the Government’s long-term plan to deliver prosperity to the whole nation, and the immense range of economic, social and cultural activities in that part of our great nation, suggest that, if anything, demand is likely to increase. So, this debate is apposite.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden is aware, many of the services operating on the West Anglia main line use new, “class 379” rolling stock. As he said, they are more modern, comfortable units, offering air conditioning, on-board passenger information systems, ample space for luggage and provision for wheelchair users. Those trains are principally used on the Cambridge and Stansted Express services, meaning his constituents are particular beneficiaries. However, as he said, not all of them, all of the time, are able to take advantage of those better services. It is important, therefore, that we look at what we can do to improve the other trains on the line.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned the “refresh” programme. Untypically for him, that was parodied rather. I thought there was a touch of irony in his use of the term, but I am determined that it should be a real refurbishment. I have made it clear in my Department this afternoon that I want our trains to look and feel good so that the quality of the journey improves and the pain that he described becomes the joy that I seek.
	I do not see any reason why trains should not look good, why the livery of trains should not be right, or why the circumstances in which people travel should not be edifying and enjoyable. That programme, which includes the replacement of seat covers and the improvement of train interiors, needs to be meaningful and comprehensive. In my role as rail Minister for the day, I have done all I can to ensure that that occurs. It is not enough to have a cursory makeover; a proper refurbishment needs to take place.
	The improvements that we make to rolling stock are tied to the acquisition of new stock. My right hon. Friend made it clear that he fears—I understand why he said this—that the new rolling stock may not necessarily be of the right order, so I make clear my view that it is important that it is. We cannot prejudge exactly where that stock will come from, but we certainly do not want what we have to be made worse. To put that another way, we cannot miss the opportunity to make what we have better. I certainly want the acquisition of the new rolling stock to be of the right order so that the quality of service that people enjoy is enhanced.

Alan Haselhurst: When I talk of new rolling stock, I expect it to come from the manufacturers, not from somewhere it has been operating for a number of years. I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend is saying, but I understand that retention tanks cannot be fitted under the on-board lavatories of the class 317 stock, and there are 51 units. Those trains may stay in service longer, with brighter paintwork and better seat covers, but there is that horrible disadvantage, which is manifested quite disgustingly at Liverpool Street station.

John Hayes: That is a powerful and vivid illustration of how railway journeys can be less than edifying and less than enjoyable. I shall certainly ask my officials to give that consideration and see what can be done, although I hear what my right hon. Friend says about some of the constraints on the ability to make the necessary improvements. I am generally of the view—I am well off-script here—that if we want to do things, we can do them, and I think we might have to go the extra mile in these terms. I am more than happy to tell my right hon. Friend that following this debate, I shall ask my officials to see what that extra mile would look like to satisfy his requirements
	In addition to the established demand along the line that I have spoken of, additional demand is growing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford said, in the lower Lea valley of north-east London. For that reason, the Government’s rail investment strategy has provided approximately £80 million to deliver three and four-tracking at the southern end of the route. This investment will facilitate the introduction of new services, as well as improve operational reliability. It will support regeneration in the lower Lea valley, including the major development at Meridian Water near Angel Road.
	Led by Network Rail, this upgrade will be delivered by 2019 and will be compatible with any subsequent enhancements of the capacity of the route, an important matter to which I shall return shortly.
	As my right hon. Friend is aware, demand is also growing on the northern end of the West Anglia main line. In particular, Cambridge is a regional economic powerhouse, making a significant and increasing contribution to the local and national economy. For this reason, Cambridge station itself is in the process of a significant redevelopment, including having a new ticket hall and additional cycle parking facilities.
	My Department is also working with Network Rail and Cambridgeshire county council to develop plans for a new station to the north of Cambridge, at Chesterton. As well as providing direct access to the rapidly expanding science park, this station would relieve some of the rail congestion at Cambridge, with operational and performance benefits right along the West Anglia main line.
	Within my right hon. Friend’s constituency, I am aware that passengers travelling to and from Audley End station also now benefit from full step-free access between platforms, following the installation of lifts. In addition, there is excellent rolling stock now operating on the route, which we will add to further, and I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that the Government and the rail industry are making good progress in improving the experience of his constituents at least in that regard, although I hear that he rightly argues on their behalf that we can do more.
	I have already highlighted the key limitation of the West Anglia main line—that it is a very busy, principally two-track, railway. I very much hope that the Government’s commitment to three and four-tracking some southern sections demonstrates our determination to improve capacity on the route. However, I recognise the strong aspirations of my right hon. Friend and other Members for faster and more frequent services, and enhancements which would require further infrastructure interventions. I would now like to discuss that issue, because my right hon. Friend’s speech was in two parts, the first about the pain of travel and the condition of the rolling stock and other matters, and the second about the need to meet demand through improved capacity.
	To begin with, I would like to explain that major investments in the railway are funded on the basis of five-year funding cycles known as control periods. We are currently in control period 5—my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford mentioned this—which began earlier this year and will run until 2019. During this control period, the Government are providing Network Rail and the rest of the rail industry with more than £16 billion of funding to upgrade and enhance the networks in England and Wales. It is from this funding pot, known as the Government’s rail investment strategy, that the lower Lea valley upgrades I have already referred to will be funded. The process for identifying possible investments and upgrades for the next control period—control period 6, which will run from 2019 to 2024—has recently begun. There are therefore opportunities for my right hon. Friend, other Members and the public in general to contribute to the process and influence the Government’s next rail investment strategy.
	As Yeats said:
	“Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking.”
	In regard to the West Anglia main line, the draft Anglia route study has recently been put out for consultation, and I want to emphasise that this is a draft for consultation. I note the remarks that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have made about its imperfections and limits, and I emphasise again that it is not set in stone. It will evolve, and I want to receive representations that will contribute to its evolution. We will make adjustments to it as we listen and learn throughout the consultation period. Tonight’s debate represents an important contribution to that process.
	The rail industry’s emerging view is that the future level of demand expected on the West Anglia main line can be met through the lengthening of certain peak Cambridge and Stansted airport services. However, there are other views on the ways to meet the demand, and I want to hear them. I am not satisfied that there is just one single take on this. We have heard from my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend, who speak on the matter with great expertise, and they take a rather different view of how the demand should be met. I want that view to be heard loud and clear in my Department and across the rail industry.
	The emerging view on control period 6 has been articulated and published by Network Rail in good faith, based on the information available to it, but it is an emerging view, a draft and a consultation. I do not want anyone to assume that it is definitive, or that the Government take it as read that that is the only way forward. Responses to the consultation will feed into the final version of the Anglia route study, which is due to be published in the middle of next year. That will then help to inform the Government’s priorities for the next rail investment strategy, for the period 2019 to 2024—control period 6.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said; he has been very helpful. I am waiting, as I am sure you are, Mr Deputy Speaker, for him to introduce a John Betjeman quote into the debate—literary man that he is—but before that, I am keen to learn more about the problem of unreliable or incomplete evidence resulting in subsequent decisions being open to challenge. None of us wants or needs that. We want clarity, evidence, good decisions and investment. Does he accept that there could be a real problem for the Department if the evidence were incomplete as a result of a poor route study, leading to subsequent decisions proving unreliable?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend must wait until the very last few lines of my speech—which I hope will be as poetic as Betjeman; they will certainly be as joyful as Lewis—when I will respond directly to that point.
	We will set out options for upgrades until 2043, including the option for four-tracking the West Anglia main line, Crossrail 2 and increased services to and from Stansted airport. It seems inevitable to me that, ultimately, we will need to greatly increase the capacity of the line to keep pace with growing demand. Again, all responses to Network Rail’s consultation, which ends on 3 February next year, and all views on the longer-term funding priorities are very much encouraged.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford made the following point, on which I wish to conclude. He said that the Government should act on the basis of clear and robust evidence, and called for a full feasibility
	study. That is a perfectly reasonable request. It is not in the script prepared for me by my civil servants, but if he is to be “Surprised by Joy”, they should be surprised, too, when I say that I am more than happy to invite him, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden and other interested parties, including local authorities and the local business representatives, to the Department to discuss what that kind of study might look like. That proposal is perfectly compatible with the consultation we have described. Indeed, it would frame a response to the consultation, which would combine
	many of the points made in this short debate, so my final surprise is not to quote Betjeman, but hon. Members will recall, thinking of Christmas, the line:
	“A cold coming we had of it”.
	I end rather more warmly, in welcoming the chance to make that new commitment to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend, and to ensure that the pain is replaced by the joy of travel.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.